Meg Hillier: I am looking forward to the evaluation of the pilot. I am particularly interested in the pilot in Tower Hamlets, which is a borough neighbouring Hackney. Will my right hon. Friend indicate when that evaluation will take place? What particular work is being done with teenage mothers, who have three times the rate of post-natal depression of other mothersand who are a particularly vulnerable group in my constituency?

Danny Alexander: The nurse family partnership is one of a panoply of pilots from the Cabinet Office. As the right hon. Lady prepares to leave office, does she think that that multiplicity of pilots has contributed usefully to tackling social exclusion, or does she think that the fact that Britain is more unequal and that the lot ofthe very poorest has got worse since 1997 suggests that, for all the Government rhetoric, the reality of life for the most socially excluded has got little better during her time in office?

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend has referred to her visit to the nurse family partnership in my constituency. The evidence from America is that for every dollar spent on suchprojects, $5 is saved. That $5 saving will happen in15 or 16 years. What consultation is she having with colleagues to try to make sure that they back investment in such programmes in order to save future spending on, for example, prisons and remedial education?

Hilary Armstrong: My hon. Friend anticipates the work that is going on across Government leading upto the comprehensive spending review. I have had enormous support from colleagues across Government for this particular programme. There is real interest, and many people want to visit the pilots and find out about it. One of the reasons why we are evaluating it so carefully is that our circumstances are different from those in the United States, because we already have universal services. I see that progressive universalism as a way to tackle problems. If we can make savings, we will secure the future of the programme for a long time to come.

Patrick McFadden: Let me begin by joining the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has been a goodfriend of mine for many years. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), would agree that we have both very much enjoyed working with her in the past year and have learned a great deal from her.
	I am keen to support Nottingham's proposals for developing the idea of the early intervention city, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's energetic campaign in that regard. As he will know, my officials have had regular contact with local agencies in Nottingham regarding this issue. In March, they attended a meeting setting out the policy context, and I understand that we expect to have a first steering group meeting between officials and local partners in August.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I am sure that the House will join me in warmly welcoming him back to the Front Bench after his recent illness.
	Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with his colleagues the innovative proposals for the renaissance of our cities that were unveiled in Bristol last Friday? Does he share his predecessor's view that the best way to create sustainable cities is to cut the regional development agencies, the learningand skills councils and, for good measure, English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation?

John Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks and for all the good wishes to me. I want especially to thank all the hard-working doctors, nurses and staff at University College hospital, who work day and night, as the staff in all our hospitals do, to help all of us who are suffering from illness. I think that every one of us would like to express our congratulations to all our NHS hospitals.
	No, I do not agree with what Mr. Heseltine said in Bristol about the renaissance of cities. I have beenin the House long enough to know that he went to Liverpool with a bus load of bankers and a Merseyside urban development corporation that gave no powers to the local authority, developed a garden city and led to further decline in Merseyside. If my hon. Friend examines the report of Labour, which has used the RDAs and English Partnerships, it is clear that we have been able to show that the major cities in this country, including Bristol and Liverpool, reflect the comments of Michael Parkinson in a recent review. He said:
	"England's cities are now better placed than at any time since the end of the 19th century to become motors of national advance...The years of decline and decay have been overcome."
	That is genuine renaissance; that is a decade of delivery.

John Prescott: I just do not agree with that conclusion because of the number of houses we have built and the degree of our investment in transport. To provide one classic example, in 1997, I rescued the Channel tunnel rail link from going bankrupt. That was the most important investmentin transport innovation in this country and was particularly important for the development of the whole south-east and the whole Olympic village. Ifwe take into account the pathfinder formulas, the millennium village and the 2 million people now living in better accommodation as a result of our decent homes programme, I have no reason to make an apology. There have been improvements and people will make a judgment when they see the final conclusion.

John Prescott: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that money has been better spent by this Government than by the previous Administration. I recall in particular that the hon. Gentleman was an advocate of the poll tax. How anyone can come here and talk about this amount of resources when£5 billion was wasted on the poll tax, which he advocated, I do not know. Perhaps he should not be doing that. Let me tell him that he should stick to his original position when he was the MP for Basildon. He launched a song called "I love Basildon" and then got on the chicken run to Southend. It is now rumoured that he is composing another song called "I love Southend"—good luck!

Andrew MacKay: In welcoming the Deputy Prime Minister back to the House in what is clearly robust good health, may I say that for once I was very pleased with his answer, because it clearly illustrates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has just assumedhis place on the Treasury Bench, will not need his Department any longer? Does the right hon. Gentleman assume that he will be the last holder of that office?

Dawn Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I also want to wish him a happy anniversary, as he entered the House on 18 June 1970. Labour policies have benefited the average family in my constituency by almost £3,000 a year, but in thepast 12 months, my constituents have been made systematically poorer by Brent council, a Lib-Dem and Tory-run council. It has changed the payment terms for council tax from 12 to 10 months, it promised 0 per cent. council tax increases but delivered 5 per cent., and it has increased charges to the elderly by 300 per cent. What can I say? Will my right hon. Friend—

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman knows, because it has been said by the Prime Minister and others at this Dispatch Box, that poverty has gone down. Relative poverty is an important issue, and property prices have played an important part in that. It is equally true, however, that everyone has gained from the prosperity of this Government in the past10 years.

Gerald Kaufman: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the37th anniversary of his election to the House of Commons on 18 June, may I thank him on behalf of my constituents for the neighbourhood renewal policies that have lifted the Northmoor area in particular out of abject poverty? We now have a cohesive community with rising property prices and wonderful community facilities. That is what my right hon. Friend has done for my constituents.

John Prescott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. The improvement is obvious in our cities: the new deal programme has helped to reduce unemployment and crime and improve housing in the poorest parts of our communities, making them areas where people now want to live. There are many examples of the successof our policies, particularly in the inner cites. The Government made that promise, and we have delivered on it. May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend, as he came into the House at the same time as me, and has also been here for 37 years?
	Since we are on congratulations, may I expressto you, Mr. Speaker, and the whole House, my appreciation of the kindness and generosity shown to me during my years in this job, through good timesand bad, of which I have had my share? I cannot say that about the feral beasts or penny scribblers in the Gallery—with some notable exceptions, of course. While we are on Greek mythology, may I say that they remind me of Hermes the messenger god? The House will know that Hermes was the god of shepherds, and, boy, do they operate in a herd. As for invention, need I say more? Best of all, he was,
	"the god of cunning and liars".
	Enough said. I look forward to reading all their rave reviews tomorrow. But whatever they say, I am proud to have been a member of this Government. In a decade of delivery, we have transformed our country for the better, following traditional values in a modern setting.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Lance-Corporal James Cartwright of Badger Squadron, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, who died in a vehicle accident while on active operation in Iraq on Saturday night. We send our sympathy and condolences to his family and friends.
	The whole House will be sad to learn of the deathof Piara Khabra, who passed away yesterday. As his many friends on both sides of the House know, he was a tireless campaigner, particularly on international development and racial equality. He was a tremendous servant to his constituents. We all remember him, as I do, often asking questions from the Bench just behind me. He will be greatly missed, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this time.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Tony Blair: It is particularly appropriate that my hon. Friend asks that question after the sad news about Piara Khabra. I endorse entirely what he says about the tremendous contribution made bythe Indian community—1 million of them—in this country. The state of the relationship between the UK and India has never been stronger, and it is a wonderful example of how our relationships with countries can change over the years. Today, this country has about 20,000 Indian students, which represents a major increase in the numbers coming to study here. We are the third largest investor in India today, and I can see our relationship only getting stronger in the yearsto come.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance-Corporal James Cartwright, who was killed in southern Iraq. I also join him in paying tribute to Piara Khabra, who servedhis constituents energetically and enthusiastically for 15 years and will be sadly missed both in the House and in Ealing.
	This week we have the scandal of the Prime Minister, in his last few days in office, opening the prison gates and releasing 25,000 prisoners on to our streets. Canhe tell us when he was first warned that the prison population would exceed 80,000?

Tony Blair: Let me explain what is actually happening. We have exceeded even the top-end projection for the number of people in prison—that projection having been made last year—so there is a requirement for us to release prisoners early, 18 days before the end of their sentences—in other words,18 days before they would have been released anyway—as a temporary measure while new prison places are being built, to ensure that we do not breach the prison conditions regulations. I regret having to do it, but we have to do it.
	Why is it having to be done? First, the number of people in prison has risen dramatically as a result of a 25 per cent. increase in sentencing. Secondly, this Government are now recalling people who breach their licence conditions, and as a consequence there are 5,000 extra people in prison. Thirdly, we now have almost 3,000 people in prison serving indeterminate sentences for violent and sexual offences.
	When we build the new prison places, as we shall—8,000 places, and now a further 1,500—we shall be able to retrieve the situation. I regret having had to do this, but it was necessary.

David Cameron: I asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: when did he first know that the prison population would exceed 80,000?
	The truth is that the Prime Minister was told by the Home Office in 2002, five years ago, that the prison population this year was projected to be not 80,000but 88,000. That was five years ago. Why did the Government so comprehensively fail to act in response to that warning?

Tony Blair: As I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman, the projection that we were given at about this time last year—we deal with this matter on a year-by-year basis—was a projection that we have exceeded, and have exceeded now. We must therefore take this temporary measure, but let us be absolutely clear: the reason there are more people in prison than ever before is that under this Government there are tougher sentences—particularly for violent and dangerous criminals—and there are 20,000 more prison places. We are now going to build an extra9,500 places on top of that. Most important of all, crime has fallen under this Government as a result of the measures that we have taken. Incidentally, the most serious violent crime has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in the past year.
	The truth is that those indeterminate sentences were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As I have said many times, the right hon. Gentleman and his party refused to support the Act, and voted against it. It is true that we will have to take this measure as a temporary measure—and I hope it is very temporary—but it is important to recognise that under this Government prison places are up and crime is down.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister tells us that he examines the position on a year-by-year basis. That tells us all we need to know: there was a complete failure of planning. The Government were told about this five years ago.
	The Prime Minister mentioned the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I checked the record, and I think Members will find that the Prime Minister and I voted the same way. I did not support the Act because I do not believe in letting people out of prison halfway through their sentences; the Prime Minister did not support it because he could not be bothered to turn up.
	Not only were the Government not thinking about this matter five years ago; they were not thinking about it a month ago. Last month, the Secretary of State for Justice said:
	"I am not going to announce early releases because of prison overcrowding... Any early releases, no... It is simply wrong."
	Why on earth did he say that?

Tony Blair: First, let me make something clear about the Criminal Justice Act. The Tory party voted against the Criminal Justice Act, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not turn up to vote on it does not alter that.
	The reason we have more people in prison today is the tough measures that we introduced for violent and sexual offenders—which the right hon. Gentleman and his party opposed—to put more people in prison. I have already said that I regret having to take this action as a temporary measure, but we are going to build an extra 9,500 prison places.
	Let me just point out that the Tory party voted not only against the tougher measures, but against the extra investment in prison places. The one group of people from whom we will not take lessons on this matter is the right hon. Gentleman and his party.

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend knows, I have only got a week to go and I am not keen on making too many more enemies. However, I will have to doubly disappoint him. First, I think that Lord Adonis has done a superb job on the city academy programme. Secondly, although Lord Harris is from a different political party, as a result of the work he has done in education, not least in Peckham, he hasgiven some of the poorest kids in the country the opportunity to get a decent education for the first time. If those two people are having an exchange abouthow we can improve our education system and give opportunity to kids who do not currently have it, that is good.

Tony Blair: It is precisely because ofthe concerns over whether people are paying an appropriate level of tax that a review has been set up that will report around the time of the pre-Budget report later this year. However, it is important to distinguish between that question, which it is perfectly legitimate to raise, and condemning all the work that private equity companies do, because that would not be right at all. But yes, of course people have concerns about this issue, which is exactly why we said that we will look into it in a sensible and serious way and reflect on what we can do.

Tony Blair: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and the desire for a new road crossing. The trouble is, as he knows, there is a dispute. He called it a squabble, but unfortunately the viewhe expressed is not shared by some of the local authorities. The trouble is that it will, in the end, have to be resolved at a local level. I know that the Department for Transport is also engaged with the issue and I am sure that it will do everything it can to mediate, but to get it done local agreement will in the end be necessary.

Tony Blair: I am sure that over the course of my right hon. Friend's premiership he will want to carry on changes that we have been making. For example, we now have a Freedom of Information Act and devolution, which we have never had before. We also have a London Assembly and Mayor, which we have not had before. I am sure that such changeswill continue over the years and fortunately, in the circumstances, that is something that I happily leave to my right hon. Friend.

Alistair Carmichael: Last Saturday, a 23-year-old man was lost at sea off my constituency when his small boat overturned in Hoy sound. Two months ago, eight Norwegian seamen lost their lives when the Bourbon Dolphin capsized and sank 85 miles off Shetland. In both cases, as in so many others, the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, in co-ordinating the search and rescue, was crucial and very much appreciated. Will the Prime Minister, in the time that remains to him, knock some heads together among the senior management of that agency to ensure thatthe current industrial dispute is resolved and the coastguards are paid the money they deserve? Or will that have to wait until things get so bad that the dispute escalates and lives are lost?

Gisela Stuart: Over the years, my right hon.Friend has visited my constituency on a number of occasions—[ Interruption.] Some visits have been more memorable than others, but on his most recent visit he came to the £2 million local improvement finance trust scheme at Woodgate Valley primary care centre, one of 200 LIFT schemes across the country. Does he agree such schemes demonstrate real investment in the NHS and real commitment to our patients, compared to the half-baked ideas that we get from the Opposition?

Kerry McCarthy: Today, World Refugee Day is being marked across the globe. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in praising the Refugee Awareness projects being run by Refugee Action in Bristol, Nottingham and Liverpool? The project workers go into local communities to challenge the many myths and media distortions about refugees and asylum seekers, and to help the refugees who have genuinely fled persecution in their homelands to find a safe haven in this country.

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government are making a financial commitment to supporting Refugee Week. It is right for us to reduce the number of unfounded claims and make sure that only genuine asylum seekers can claim asylum here, but none the less we must make it clear that this country should always be open to genuine refugees fleeing tyranny. This country has a very proud record in that regard, and I am sure that that will continue.

Tony Blair: I am aware of the case and I sympathise with Samantha and her family. I assuremy hon. Friend that full consular support is being provided to the family by UK consular staff in Houston and Mexico City. We are also in touch with the FBI about the case, and are ready to give every support to the US and Mexico's FBI to ensure the safe return of Sebastian.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision fora single assessment process for disability benefits; and for connected purposes.
	Disability benefits are complex and convoluted; they are not something that any rational person would want to spend a huge amount of time trying to understand unless they had to do so, but 6 million disabled people in the UK have to do just that, including up to 400,000 families with disabled children. For them, the benefit system is simultaneously a lifeline and a nightmare. I suggest to the House that it is time we did better.
	I will not test Members' patience by going into enormous detail about the complicated differences in eligibility criteria for the disability living allowance,the attendance allowance, the disabled facilities grant, the community equipment fund, the carer's allowance, the independent living fund, the industrial injuries disablement benefit and incapacity benefit. I wondered whether the complexity of the system might be a function of the complexity of disability itself; but why, when we spend £26 billion annually on benefits for disabled people, are there so many complaints?
	There are complaints from taxpayers who, despite the fact that they want their money used to support the most vulnerable people in society, constantly read stories in the media about disability benefits being claimed by people who are patently not disabled. There are also complaints from disabled people themselves, who all too often have to put up with a system thatlets them down, frustrates them and humiliates themby asking them to repeat information about their disability a thousand times over, squandering money on official error, waste and fraud, and all too often failing to reach the very people it most needs to reach: those most at risk of falling into and becoming trapped in poverty.
	In my research, I discovered that most unusual of things in modern politics: a relatively simple solution that does not cost any money. I will return to that later, but first let me give the House an example of the crazy complexity of the current system. A couple of weeks ago, I met a man who, a few years earlier, had been going to the shops with his daughter. He was walking along his local high street when a car careered off the road and crashed into him. He was carried some distance. Fortunately, his daughter was unharmed, although she had severe psychological trauma, but he ended up in a coma and when he came round he had an acquired brain injury. As a result, he was unable to continue with his job. Someone in that situation is eligible for up to eight different benefits. If he were to apply for them all, he would have to answer a total of 1,275 questions over 352 pages.
	Let me put that in context. An A-level studentdoing maths, physics and chemistry has to answer510 questions. Someone applying to do a masters in law at Harvard has to answer 54 questions. So, our welfare state, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of a civilised society, makes a man with an acquired brain injury answer more questions than our brightest A-level students or our most ambitious lawyers.That cannot be right. I wondered whether, because disabilities are complicated, we needed to ask all those questions, but in fact 80 per cent. of the questions are repeated. A third of the questions are repeated twice and a quarter are repeated four times. Think not about the waste of employing Department for Work and Pensions officials to process the same information over and over again. Think not about how that money could be put to much better use. Think instead of the man with an acquired brain injury and the signal that this sends to him about our willingness as a society to help him piece his life together. Think also of those parents who discover that they have a child with severe disabilities and the signal it sends to them that we ask them to answer more questions than if they were applying for a mortgage, a credit card or a bank account.
	The most pernicious outcome of the complexity is not the frustration that it causes disabled people; it is the fact that it makes it so difficult for them to get back into the world of work. All the benefits have different rules about how much work someone is and is not allowed to do. On incapacity benefit and carer's allowance, one can earn £87 a week. On income support, it is £20 a week. On housing benefit, after£20 a week, a person's benefit is deducted at a marginal rate of 65 per cent. On council tax benefit, it is 20 per cent. The result is that for many disabled people the simplest and safest thing is not to work. That leads on to another problem: poverty. We know that, according to the Government's preferred measure, child poverty is increasing. A third of parents of disabled children say that they are put off from applying for the disability living allowance because of the complexity of the application form.
	My Bill will not solve all those problems at a stroke, but it will transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled people by requiring the Department for Work and Pensions to get its computer systems to talk to each other, so that, if a disabled person consents to it, they need only supply information about their disability once and that can be used across all the different benefit streams. Every year, the Department for Work and Pensions processes 7.2 billion questions from disability benefit applicants. Nearly 6 billion of those are repeated questions. This measure will save money in administration costs, but, more importantly, it will save huge frustration and aggravation for disabled people.
	The Government do not have a good record on technology projects. However, that should not obscure the fact that technology can transform the lives ofthe most socially disadvantaged. Why should the IT revolution benefit only the BlackBerry generation of adults or the MySpace generation of children? Why should it not benefit disabled people as well?
	We cannot remove people's impairments, but we can remove the obstacles that the state needlessly and carelessly puts in their way that make it more difficult for them to find a job, to live independently, or to hold their family together. Only once should disabled people have to supply information about their disability, unless or until that disability changes. Only once should a family with a disabled child have to supply information about that child's disability, unless or until that changes. Only once should that information be processed by the Department for Work and Pensions. My Bill is a modest measure. It would not get us there all in one go, but it would allow progress to be made in the right direction. For that reason, I urge the House to support it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Hunt, Natascha Engel, Greg Clark, Malcolm Bruce, Michael Gove, Ms Sally Keeble, Stephen Hammond, Anne Milton, Mr. Graham Stuart, Mr. Stewart Jackson, John Penrose and Mr. Paul Goodman.

Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—normally I do give way, as he knows, and I will give way during my speech if he still wishes to intervene, but it would be helpful for the House if I give an indication first of where we are.
	First, we want a European Union that is able to deliver and that makes a positive difference to people's lives, but we want a European Union of sovereign nations, not a superstate. We want greater efficiency and more accountability. We want more say for national Parliaments and Governments. Above all, we want a European Union that takes action where it is needed, on issues like climate security, economic reform and energy, and leaves national Governments in charge of key areas including taxes, foreign policy, defence and the domestic economy.
	In short, we want a European Union that delivers jobs, security, growth and influence in a globalised world—a Europe that helps equip citizens in every member state to meet the challenges of, and to thrive in, the 21st century. That is our positive vision for Europe's future—a clear conception of an EU that we want, and that we believe this country needs.
	Let no one be in doubt that the reason we place so much emphasis on taking the right decisions over the next two days is nothing to do with the blocking tactics that we have seen in previous years. It is the exact opposite. We want a strong and effective Europe, but we want one that is focused on delivering results, not building bureaucracy. So let me be clear on some of the specific issues that we are likely to have to resolve over the next two days.
	We support a charter of fundamental rights that brings together existing rights found in the European convention on human rights, current EC treaties and other instruments. We support qualified majority voting to unlock decision making in those areas where it is in Britain's interest. Despite ridiculous claims that are sometimes made that no change at all must be made, let me remind the House that it was Lady Thatcher who first gave up the veto, and that under her, qualified majority voting was extended to 12 articles, and under her successor, John Major, to 30—three zero—policy areas. I do not criticise them for those changes. They made them because they knew that sometimes it was and is in Britain's interest to do so when, for example, change that we in the House may all believe is wanted and needed might otherwise be blocked by those who resist that change.
	We are in favour of a Europe-wide response bothto organised crime and to international terrorism. I imagine that that, again, is common ground across the House. In fact, more than that, we think a Europe-wide response is a vital necessity, but we are equally clear that any EU initiatives should not affect fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system, should not undermine our ability to safeguard national security, and should not weaken control of our own borders.
	We believe in a common foreign and security policy that will boost our collective influence abroad, butnot in a single foreign policy. It must be based on consensus, by which I mean unanimity. We would support a reform of the Commission that promoted effectiveness, efficiency and strong leadership. We would like to see the subsidiarity mechanism in the current constitutional treaty proposals strengthened. We believe it will help us to find the best balance between action at regional, national and European levels, and in so doing will better connect Europe to its citizens. We would support a full-time Chair of the European Council with the same role and powers now exercised by the Council president of the day, because we believe it could help to ensure greater coherence and consistency in the EU's agenda.
	If we are able to agree such a package at the Council it would make the EU stronger and better able to deliver on its priorities. The House should make no mistake—that would be of direct benefit to the people of the UK.

Margaret Beckett: Yes, we will look with great sympathy at the proposals that have been made, for example by the Netherlands. Not everyone thinks that this is the right course of action, but certainly this Government very much approve of efforts to increase the role and the opportunities of national Parliaments to contribute.

Frank Field: Even if we accept only part of what we have read in the media in the last few days, it is clear that the Government have a fight on their hands in defending this country's national interest in these negotiations. In those circumstances, was it not weakening our position for the Prime Minister to say that we would not be having a referendum on the results of these negotiations? Could we therefore conclude that, given that she isnow stretching out carefully the grounds where the Government are intent on not giving way, if they are forced to do so in the negotiations, the British people will be able to reconnect with the Government and in Europe in having a say in what happens?

Margaret Beckett: I understand the logic of myright hon. Friend's comments. If we are able to agree an amending treaty, that will be a considerable achievement. For many member states it is a source of considerable discomfort that, having ratified a proposed constitutional treaty and having explained to their electorates—and in the case of the Spanish Government having had a referendum in whichthey succeeded in obtaining the approval of their electorate—that this was to their advantage, they may then have to go back to their people and say that there will not be a new constitution for Europe, but that there will be, as there has been in the past, an amending treaty. That would be no easier for them than it would be for us to say that we will go ahead with a constitutional treaty even though it has once been rejected.
	However, whatever the logic of discussion about any potential referendum, one can only judge whether a treaty would require a referendum when one seesits content—assuming that it is an amending treaty; nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Secondly—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with this argument, which I feel quite strongly about—I see no reason whatever why we should have had a string of amending treaties from Conservative Governments that never attracted a referendum, no matter how much they extended, for example, qualified majority voting, but a Labour Government are somehow not allowed to do it.

Graham Brady: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's indication that foreign policy must be unanimous. Will she be equally clear that the Government would reject the amalgamation of the roles of external relations commissioner and external relations high representative, and emphatically that we would oppose the creation of an EU diplomatic service?

Margaret Beckett: It was only because of a Labour Government that anyone had a chance to vote. The Conservative party took Britain into the European Community and, despite having said that that would not be done without the consent of either a general election or a referendum, no such commitment was honoured. Perhaps we are seeing double standards here.
	It should have come as no surprise to anyone—nevertheless, it was apparently a surprise to some—that the United Kingdom is strongly in favour of an amending treaty, not a constitutional treaty. Indeed, I think the General Affairs Council as a whole has at least tacitly agreed that that is the only course that we can follow. The type of amending treaty to which the United Kingdom would agree should be no different in style or importance of content from those broughtto this House by previous Governments, including previous Conservative Governments.
	In the past, such treaties have never been subjectto a national referendum. Indeed, the only national referendum that we have ever had in this country occurred after the decision to join the European Community in 1972. An amending treaty of the sort that I have described would not involve a decision on anything like the scale of the decision in 1972, which the British people endorsed in 1975. Let me be absolutely blunt with the House and with the country: the UK will not agree to a treaty in Brussels that we judge would require a referendum in this country.
	It is worth repeating that any treaty that resultsfrom this European Council and any subsequent intergovernmental conference would, of course, belaid before Parliament, where it would be subject to extensive examination and debate. It could not be ratified until any necessary amendments to the European Communities Act 1972 had been passed by this House.
	On one point, I suspect that the Shadow Foreign Secretary and I agree—it will not be sufficient simply to change the title of the document. An amending treaty must be different from the constitutional treaty that preceded it in content, in form and in purpose.
	The European Union as a whole must acknowledge, as this Government have done so, that the realityon the ground has changed. We accepted the constitutional treaty, and we were prepared—indeed we were preparing—to recommend it to the British people. We thought it was, on balance, a good deal for Britain—incidentally, so did many of our European partners, in many cases with considerable frustration and regret. However, the treaty was rejected by the voters of France and the Netherlands, two founder members of the European Union, which not only changed things, but changed them dramatically.
	The people of those countries had spoken, and the leaders of Europe had to take heed. So we embarked on a so-called "period of reflection". During that time, we deliberately shifted the focus of the European Union back on to those things that we judge matter most to our citizens, not least through the informal summit at Hampton Court held during the UK presidency. We made it clear that our priority was not internal institutional wrangling, but the challenges of globalisation—climate change, energy security, jobs and growth. It would serve Europe very ill indeed if now, two years down the line, we acted as if we had simply not listened, as if the period of reflection counted for nothing and as if we wanted simply to turn the clock back to before summer 2005.

Mike Gapes: If there is an agreement such that the Government feel able to say after the weekend that there will no longer be a need for a referendum, may I take it that that position will be made explicitly clear to the House next week? If so,will the Government, in view of the importance of parliamentary and public engagement on those matters, set out how Parliament will be involved in any process towards an intergovernmental conference under the Portuguese presidency, particularly if that might be held during the recess or shortly after the House resumes in the autumn?

Margaret Beckett: No, I do not accept that. Apart from anything else—my hon. Friend may not be aware of this—the Irish Government have a constitutional requirement to have a referendum, so there is no question but that there will be at least one referendum. Whether there will be more than one is entirely another matter.
	As I said a little earlier, this Council meeting will also acknowledge the wider achievements of the German presidency: things that Europe's citizens will actually see and feel. Those include an agreement to open up Europe's energy market and make it more competitive, action to cut mobile phone charges, and sharing information between police forces to tackle cross-border crime. And, of course, at the last European Council in spring, we saw Europe at its best. The EU took a vital step not only in leading the global response to one of the greatest threats that we face—climate change—but in so doing beginning the process of creating the world's first low-carbon and energy- efficient economy. If we make that transition successfully, it will mean that Europe, and the UK, will have a competitive economic advantage for perhaps a generation to come. Similarly, the EU has recently agreed the services directive, which is set to add£2.5 billion, and up to 135,000 jobs, to the UK's economy.
	So Europe as it now stands can deliver and is delivering. It would not be in crisis—it would not be paralysed—if no agreement on institutional reform were reached.

David Heathcoat-Amory: If the European Union is working so well in the way thatthe Foreign Secretary describes, why do we need an amending treaty or any extension of majority voting?

Margaret Beckett: I do not intend to get involved in yet another wrangle about whether Britain shouldleave the European Union, but I notice that the Conservatives are, as ever, perhaps not entirely of one mind on the matter.
	When this Government came to power in 1997, we inherited from the Conservative party an acrimonious and stagnant relationship with our European Union partners in which Britain had mostly been represented by, at best, an empty chair, with our voice not even being heard. The rest of the European Union viewed us with a mixture of confusion and frustration. The result was that we had little or no influence in the European Union and could not lead the European debate in the directions that we wanted. The attitude that the Conservatives had then, which some clearly still hold, was not only an abdication of responsibility, and with it influence, but was based on a circular argument. So sure were they that Europe was a bad thing and that the UK could never achieve anything in the European Union that they very rarely did. That was, and is, a self-fulfilling prophecy that did immense damage to our national interest.
	Under this Government, the position is very different.

Margaret Beckett: I will not do so any more.
	Positive engagement leads to positive action: the biggest reform of the common agricultural policyfor 50 years; reform, after 40 years, of the sugar regime; and, for the first time ever, a budget whereby similar-sized economies such as France and Italy are making payments on a par with our own, which, despite all Margaret Thatcher's talk of rebates and hand-bagging, is something that the Conservatives never came even close to achieving. We have, for the first time, European security and defence policy missions beyond Europe's borders. We have, as I said, bold action on climate security and energy security. Through the Hampton Court agenda, we have brought a new focus on reinvigorating the European economy and on investment in the future. Just last year, UK exports to continental Europe were up by 24 per cent. to £150 billion.
	Over the next two days, the European Union has the opportunity to agree improvements that will make it work even better. If it takes that opportunity, Europe will be stronger and more effective. That would be good for this country and for the people of this country. This Government have always recognised that a strong UK in a strong Europe is the only way in which to face the challenges of the next decade and the next century. It is for exactly that—a strong UK in a strong Europe—that the Prime Minister and I will argue in Brussels.

William Hague: I have, as ever, listened with care to the words of the Foreign Secretary. The part of her speech whenshe reminded us that she was opposed to British membership of Europe in 1975, and that we should not therefore come crying to her about its faults, was said with some feeling, in contrast to the other parts of the speech, which were perhaps drafted in the Foreign Office and gave the rest of us a lecture about being more positive in our attitudes to engagement with the European Union.
	No doubt there are some areas of agreement between what the Foreign Secretary said and the case that I want to put to the House. Nevertheless, as she acknowledged at the beginning of her speech, matters have now moved on sufficiently in European affairs that we have all had to prepare a new speech for this occasion. Very important things may be about to happen in the European Union over the next few days. Tomorrow, the European Union's Heads of State and Government meet to try to negotiate a treaty of fundamental importance to the EU's future. The European constitution, which was emphatically and rightly rejected by French and Dutch voters two years ago, is in many substantial senses being revived. That constitution was, as the Belgian Prime Minister put it at the time, the "capstone" of a "federal...state". The German Europe Minister of the time said that it was the
	"birth certificate of the United States of Europe".
	If the Government accept parts of that constitution under another guise, let us be clear that they risk taking another significant step away from what the European Union ought to be—a community of nations working together intimately for mutual benefit—and towards the integrated state that some in Europe honestly wish for, but that has never been the desired goal of the people of Britain.
	The Government's response to the efforts of other Governments to revive the constitution has been, in our view, truly extraordinary. As French and German leaders have proclaimed their views and sherpas have rushed round EU capitals, our Government have spent a great deal of time denying that any negotiations have been taking place. That has demonstrated neither forethought nor leadership. After the constitution's rejection there was, understandably—the Foreign Secretary referred to it—a pause for reflection. There has since been a debate about Europe's future to which the Government have made no notable contribution over the past two years.
	I believe that this will go down in history as one of the great wasted opportunities for Britain to set the terms of debate on Europe's future. The federalists had seen their great achievement—a constitution for Europe, to which this Government agreed—rejected by the voters. It was clear that the goal of ever closer political union was out of tune with what many of the peoples of Europe wanted. That was the time for British leadership to push for the only model of European Union that can work for all of Europe in the long term—a flexible, open Europe. It was time to look again at some failing policies.
	Today's Europe is ready, in large parts and forthe first time, to listen to that alternative vision. Enlargement has profoundly changed the dynamics of the European Union. Countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland do not want ever closer political union; they have been calling for a different direction. In the Netherlands, political leaders have reflected deeply on the referendum result and the relationship between the European Union and the nation state. Yet instead of taking the lead, the Government have buried their head in the sand for most of the past two years. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary said on the BBC that she now finds the prospect of the summit "nerve-wracking"—not something to strike terror into other countries' negotiators, I am afraid. This should have been a time for a confident British Government to give a lead to those who question the need for a new treaty.

William Hague: My right hon. Friend will have discussed them when he met Mrs Merkel during the leadership election. I discussed them with her when I met herin Berlin last year. My right hon. Friend discussed those plans with other European leaders such as Mr. Sarkozy, who has since become the President of France. There is no shortage of discussion between the Conservative party and European leaders. Indeed, those discussions moved Mr. Sarkozy to send a good wishes message to the Conservative party conference last year. The hon. Lady need not worry about such matters.

Greg Hands: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Government have had their heads in the sand. That is especially true in recent weeks, when according to the diary of the  Bundesregierung website, Mrs Merkelheld one-to-one meetings with the Polish leader—on15 May—the French leader, the Danish leader and the Swedish leader, and also had discussions with Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania and so on. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister has been on a legacy tour and failed to stand up for Britain's interests when he was most needed in the past six weeks.

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend refers to conversations and discussions, but we require action. It was noticeable that the Foreign Secretary was unable to give an example of what she has done during her tenure and Great Britain's presidency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government could have achievedthe introduction of a common European gas market, which would have helped control gas prices in the UK, especially given that Russia has an increasing influence over prices?

William Hague: I see. The right hon. Gentleman's successor as party leader might agree to his joiningthe Cabinet. That is especially interesting. The Conservative party's commitment to forming a new group in the European Parliament with our Czech colleagues in 2009 is categorical. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will show even more interest in it at that time.

William Hague: I largely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Climate change should form an important part of building a genuine European agenda. However, he should not believe that that means that more power should be located in the European Union. The Foreign Secretary said to the European Scrutiny Committee last week that everything on climate change
	"can all be done, is being done and has been done within existing treaties."
	That is the way to proceed. Institutional change is not required.

William Cash: I am much encouraged to hear my right hon. Friend say that we want some repatriation of powers, which is crucial. However, that poses the question of how we can achieve that because we also want to achieve economic competitiveness. If we could not achieve our objectives through negotiation with other member states by tackling the problem through invading the acquis, will he reconfirm the party's vote last year on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, in this House and in this House of Lords, to override the European Communities Act 1972 when necessary and require the judiciary to obey the latest inconsistent Act of the Westminster Parliament?

William Hague: In that vote, we simply recognised what we understand as the constitutional position, which the Prime Minister restated last week: that the House has ultimate sovereignty. However, it is not necessary to expand on that further today.
	The Government are again faced with substantial parts of the constitution, which they privately but forlornly hoped would go away if they said nothing about it. The German presidency's approach was spelled out in the questionnaire that it sent to European capitals a few weeks ago. It referred to preserving the substance of the constitution while making the necessary presentational changes. Such an approach is a profound mistake. I think that the Foreign Secretary believes that it is a mistake. Asthe Laeken declaration in December 2001 recognised, the crucial question is how the EU can be brought closer to its peoples. There can be no surer way of worsening the democratic deficit and disconnection between EU institutions and peoples than ignoring the verdict of the voters.
	There are those who say that the EU is a project pushed forward by a political elite who do not care what ordinary people want because they think they know better, so what better way to confirm that argument than by saying that if the people democratically reject the EU constitution, we will just bring it back with a few presentational tweaks? If people do not feel ownership over the EU, they will steadily turn against it, which would not be in Britain's or Europe's interest. Further political integration must have the people's permission. In our view, political integration has already gone too far. Either way, however, it should be for the British people to decide.
	The Prime Minister appeared to recognise that when he agreed that there should be a referendum on theEU constitution. He famously discovered his reverse gear—we all watched him doing it in the House in April 2004—by saying, "Let battle be joined". With the zeal of a convert, he gave cast-iron assurances that the British people would have their say. During the general election campaign, he told  The Sun:
	"We don't know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event"—
	and that, he told  The Sun, was "a Government promise". He went even further by saying:
	"What you can't do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go."
	The Government have absolutely no democratic mandate to bring in parts of the constitution without a referendum of the British people. That is why, if there is a new treaty that transfers competences from Britain to the EU by bringing back parts of the constitution, we are clear that there must be referendum. That must apply whether the transfer of competence is handed over on day one of the new treaty or whether a ratchet effect is initiated that will see power shift to the EU as decisions and judgments are made over the years.

William Hague: It most certainly did, and I shall make three points here. First, the Minister is clearly trying to make a point about consistency. He will recall that Labour MPs voted for a referendum on that occasion, so the argument about consistency can be made either way. Secondly, I remind the Minister that the most important thing in the treaty was the provision to join the euro if the Government wished it in the future—and on that, the Government of the time offereda referendum. Thirdly, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the situation is different now from what it was 15 years ago because the arguments have changed and the peoples of this and other countries have moved on in their belief that political integration has now gone far enough. That is why further political integration requires their democratic consent.

Kate Hoey: I was one Member who voted against the Maastricht treaty and who wanted a referendum. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might help Labour Members who want a referendum if any changes are made to give more powers back to Europe if he admitted that sometimes the Conservative party as well as the Labour party can get it wrong? Perhaps the Conservatives were wrong not to allow a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

William Hague: I readily admit that politicians of all parties get things wrong, but I would have to give longer thought to the particular question of whether we were wrong about Maastricht. As I said, however, the consistency argument can be levelled against the Minister for Europe, but the hon. Lady has made her point.
	The Government's position on whether there should be a referendum is more than a little unclear, and the Foreign Secretary has just added a twist to it in her speech. Perhaps the Minister for Europe will be able to expand on it when he winds up the debate. The Prime Minister has said that there will not be a referendum on the treaty. The Foreign Secretary said a few days ago—despite having stood on a manifesto promisinga referendum—that she preferred a model of Government without referendums. I believe that she said yesterday to the Select Committee that we would be able to tell on Monday whether it would be necessary to have a referendum, but today she has said that the Government will not agree to anything that requires a referendum in their judgment, which means, of course, that it will not be necessary to work anything out on Monday. There are several contradictory statements there.
	The Chancellor has said that we will have to wait and see and the Minister for Europe, who is now being touted as the Chancellor's close ally—I have to tell him, however, that the Chancellor has about 330 close allies on the Government Benches at the moment, all hoping for what the right hon. Gentleman is hoping for next Thursday afternoon, namely, a telephone call with encouraging news—says that it will all depend on the final package. What is the Government's view? Will they keep or break their promise? Will they let the British people decide or will they try to ignore them?
	While they are at it—again, the Minister could deal with this in his winding-up speech—can someone in the Government clear up another intriguing point in their position? Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made much of the fact that thenew treaty will not have the "characteristics of a constitution", but what are those characteristics? The Government have persistently refused to say what those characteristics are. It is wholly illogical to claim that a treaty does not require a referendum because it fails to pass the test of characteristics, and then be totally unable to say what that test is. That is wholly of a piece with the Government's utterly confused and disjointed approach to this matter.
	The Government have had eight different policiesin the past seven years. In 2000, the Prime Minister explained:
	"It is perhaps easier for the British than for others to recognise that a constitutional debate must not necessarily end with a single, legally binding document called a Constitution".
	In 2002, he said that
	"we do need a proper Constitution for Europe".
	By 2003, the current Northern Ireland Secretary was saying it was just a "tidying-up exercise", and not important enough for a referendum. Later that year, the Prime Minister said that holding a referendum would be
	"a gross and irresponsible betrayal of the true British national interest"—
	in other words, it was too important to hold a referendum on this issue. Despite that, he was soon in favour of exactly such a referendum to resolve "once and for all" where Britain stood in Europe. It was "time to decide" what was "our destiny", so we should let "the issue be put".
	Yet that vital statement of mission and purpose went the way of every previous statement on this subject. It was as if Nelson had said:
	"England expects every man to do his duty"—
	but then said, "On second thoughts, perhaps not,as we might do this in a few years time or forget it altogether". Now, the Prime Minister says, having agreed to the constitution then, that we do not need a constitution after all and that we must "listen to the people", which apparently means not asking them what they think. We now find that the constitution, which he had described as a "success for Britain" now needs four "major changes", without which Britain will veto the new treaty, although there is no explanation of why these red lines were apparently not a problem when the whole thing was negotiated the first time round.
	The Government have had so many positions that they are now recycling the old ones. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary told the BBC that the whole business was intended to "tidy up the rule book", taking us back to the position of the Northern Ireland Secretary four years ago. That is the consistency, vision and backbone of a jellyfish. That is what we have had from the Government in recent years.

William Hague: I really must proceed, but I may give way one or two more times later. It is already becoming a long speech.
	Instead of accountability, we have had desperate secrecy. Never before have I known three chairmen of Select Committees, all from the governing party, express such strongly and similarly worded frustration over the Government's behaviour. The Chairmanof the European Scrutiny Committee has called it "non-transparency". The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has had to write to the Foreign Secretary to complain of the
	"failure of accountability to Parliament".
	The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has pointed out that the Government have refused to say what position, if any, they have on the vital issue of whether criminal justice should be moved from the intergovernmental third pillar to full Community competence.
	Indeed, when the Foreign Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee last week that
	"nothing that you could really call negotiations has taken place",
	we could not work out whether she had been kept so utterly out of the loop by the Prime Minister that she simply did not know what was going on, or whether she had a completely different understanding of the word "negotiate" from the rest of us. That very day, the French President told reporters how he and the Prime Minister had agreed the basis of a new treaty and the German Foreign Minister informed MEPs in Brussels how near to a conclusion he had brought the talks. Was that position reached without the Foreign Office being involved in any negotiation of any kind? That is an alarming thought, if it is true.
	When the Prime Minister set out his so-called red lines on Monday, it was the first time that Parliament or the British public had heard what the Government's view was. Indeed, it must have come as quite a surprise to the Foreign Secretary, who told the European Scrutiny Committee that nothing was going on at all, and that in any case
	"the less I say about what we might in principle accept and what we might not, the more I preserve the maximum amount of negotiating space to resist anything that I think is not in Britain's national interest".
	The Prime Minister took a different view on Monday. His remarks deserve serious scrutiny, because what he did not mention was more significant than what he did. He said nothing about the proposed permanent EU President, nothing about a single legal personality for the EU, nothing about the proposed primacy of EU law over our laws, and nothing about the hugely important points buried in the small print of the original constitution. He said that there would be no qualified majority voting on any provision that
	"can have a big say in our own tax and benefits system".
	So would qualified majority voting that had a small say be all right? Will the Minister enlighten us on that when he winds up the debate?
	The Prime Minister said that he would not agree to anything that
	"displaces the role of British foreign policy".
	So why not put the case earlier that the Foreign Secretary, evidently uncomfortably, had to put to Foreign Ministers a few nights ago? She put the case against qualified majority voting and against an EU Foreign Minister having a diplomatic service in the European Union. The Prime Minister also said that he would not accept a treaty that allowed the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law. But would it be acceptable to give the charter legal standing so that it could change EU law, which would ultimately affect this country? He said that he would not agree to give up our ability to control our common law and judicial and police systems. Does that mean that the veto over criminal justice will be kept and that, crucially, criminal justice will remain in the intergovernmental third pillar?
	It has taken weeks, while other Governments have staked out positions, proposed new articles and campaigned for their views, for our Government to set out their so-called red lines, four days before the summit itself. Those red lines turn out not only to be red herrings but, on examination, to prove to be so carefully phrased by the Prime Minister that he could sign up to an EU treaty that transferred substantial powers to the EU and enacted much of the constitution and yet not breach his four red lines. The Prime Minister could give the charter of fundamental rights legal standing, move criminal law to community control, and agree to a Foreign Minister in all but name with an EU external action service and European embassies, a permanent President of the Council, a common asylum policy, widespread extension of qualified majority voting elsewhere and a broadening of EU competence over employment policy—and still say that his red lines had not been breached. Those so-called red lines in the sand are but chaff thrown up to con the British public that the Government want simply to defend the British national interest, when their central priority is to avoid holding a referendum at all costs.
	The Foreign Secretary gave the game away whenshe said that any treaty that, in the Government's judgment, required a referendum would not be signed. The idea is that the great leader will go forward on behalf of the British public, and that we do not have to worry because he would not sign anything—would he?—that would require the people to trouble themselves with casting their vote. That is a patronising attitude towards the electorate and a breach of the Government's election promise.

William Hague: No, I do not agree with that and will not be proposing a referendum on that subject, either now or at the next general election. We have put forward our preferred model for the development of the European Union—the right hon. Gentleman will be added to the list of Members to whom I must send my seminal speeches on these subjects—and I could go on about it at even greater length than I have been doing. However, the immediate issue at hand is what will happen tomorrow and on Friday at the summit.
	If we had a Government with a clear vision for a modern Europe, the negotiations at the summit would present not only challenges but opportunities. The Foreign Secretary has mentioned one or two of the relevant points. The Dutch Government have proposed giving national Parliaments the right to block legislation that breaches the principle of subsidiarity. For far too long, and to the deep frustration of many on both sides of this House, this important principle has had no proper enforcement mechanism. The Dutch proposal at least attempts to provide it with an effective one and we urge the Government to support it, and not just to treat it with sympathy, as the Foreign Secretary said a little while ago.
	The Czech Government have proposed a flexibility clause that would allow member states to return powers to national control where appropriate. For far too long, the EU has been a one-way ratchet, taking powers from member states but unable to return them. We hope that the Government will support the Czechs on that imaginative proposal. Perhaps they should have put forward the proposal with the Czechs and campaigned for it across Europe.
	The Government declare themselves neutral on the question of voting weights, but I am not sure that Ministers have entirely thought the German proposal through. In particular, the new system, with its exact correspondence between population and voting weight, will make it harder to admit large but poor countries into the European Union. Indeed, some suspect thatit was devised with that purpose in mind. Giventhe fundamental importance of the goal of Turkish membership of the EU, that area needs to be considered very carefully indeed.
	However, the biggest omission of all by the Government is that they have missed the opportunity to say what I suspect the Foreign Secretary believes, namely, that we do not need a new treaty for Europe's countries to act together. It is simply not true that a Europe of 27 is not working with the old rules. As the Foreign Secretary has admitted, the EU is coping perfectly well without new rules.
	Yes, the Prime Minister should go to the summit saying that no deal is better than a bad deal—but he should also have been saying for a long time that the time for political integration is over, and that the time to look outwards to the great challenges of global warming, global poverty and globalised competition must begin. The EU's focus should be on practical issues that matter—a point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—such as success in the world trade round, going further with the single market and improving the emissions trading scheme to create long-term incentives for businessto invest in green technology. Those should be the priorities and we do not need a treaty to accomplish them, as the Foreign Secretary has made clear several times.
	The Prime Minister should point out those facts to some of his colleagues. He should be advising other leaders to respond to the unhappiness in their own countries, rather than choosing to ignore it in his own. He should be saying that Britain does not support a revived constitution. If he did these things, and if he had done them over the past two years, he would at last, in Europe, have something that he could call a legacy.

Michael Connarty: I should like to say to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that if he wishes to send me any of his writings, he should not send me anything that I can read in  Hansard, because I have already read those, and I am not convinced that he is not still just playing the game. If he were ever to become Foreign Secretary, he might take a more positive view ofthe need for an amending treaty—or a number of amending treaties—to allow Europe to continue to advance.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the backbone of a jellyfish, and about the need forthe Government to be responsive and reflective. As the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I believe that we have made remarkable strides in the past two years. Perhaps there was not a dialogue or a conversation, but there was certainly one-way traffic from those of us who did not think that the convention would bring in a proposal for a constitution, which was unnecessary, and that what should have been proposed was an amending treaty. That would have taken on the recommendation in the Laeken proposals to get closer to the people of Europe.
	I would like to see the introduction of a red card. Such a card would be held not by the Government using the Whip, but by Parliament, where we could have a free vote on whether to demand that something be taken back by the Commission. There is now talk of an orange card being added to the yellow card. Anything better than a white card will suit me. The role of Parliaments should be strengthened with regard to the decisions that should be taken at this level under subsidiarity. I do not mind whether that involves repatriation on an item-by-item basis or a method of preventing the Commission from creeping—a term I use often—even further along with its proposals.
	I am concerned that those who are demanding a referendum are not really debating the constitution proposals, but are trying to portray the European Union, as it currently stands, as a malevolent force. I do not see the European Union as a malevolent force, and I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary does not, although some of his Back-Bench colleagues might. I see it as a positive arrangement. It does need amendment, and he is wrong to think that an amending treaty is unnecessary. It is clear that the Commission is too large, and that the proposal to bring a series of presidencies into one consistent presidency title and process works. Recently, we went to Germany and then Portugal to see the informal troika arrangement. Rather than distinct changes from presidency to presidency, a consistent synergy and purposefulness can be achieved from one presidency to the next over five presidencies. The proposal is similar to that whereby the European Parliament renews its officers after a two-and-a-half-year term.

Michael Connarty: I will not take interventions at the moment.
	We need to consider seriously whether we would accept an amending treaty if the constitution is not introduced.
	I agree that those who spend time in either the European Parliament or the European Commission have a tendency to go native. Perhaps those who get tied up in European Council meetings also move increasingly close to the Commission's view. We must find a way of countering that, and the concept of a stronger card than a yellow card would deal with that. Clearly people went native on the convention, which was taken over by Giscard d'Estaing and other powerful figures and members of the Commission. They produced a treaty for a constitution, which was not what we thought they were setting out to produce. That has since been repudiated by the members of the convention from this Parliament—both the member representing the Opposition, who signed up to an amended treaty, and the member representing the Labour Benches. Questions have also been raised about whether the then Minister for Europe has doubts about what he signed up for. I could not necessarily be accused of undergoing that process, either at the time or afterwards. Last week, in a speech on the future of Europe, I said:
	"The UK"—
	both Parliament and people—
	"will not be lectured, hectored or bullied"
	into signing a treaty detrimental to the people of the UK.
	We should pause to consider some facts. Many people outside do not necessarily understand the matter being discussed, and they are confused by the language that we use. People might want to read a good note in the Library about the concept of treaties. There is only really one treaty—the treaty of Rome. Every other treaty has merely amended the treaty of Rome. Even the treaty of Amsterdam—which changed all the numbering of the original treaty of Rome—and the Maastricht treaty were amending treaties. The treaty proposed by the convention, however, would have been different. It would have been a new treaty, because it collapsed all other treaties and proposed a constitution. People reacted against that more than anything else.
	Even the shadow Foreign Secretary talked about EU law, but my understanding is that there is no EU law; there is EC—European Community—law. All the directives and regulations are EC directives, notEU directives. If the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—he has left the Chamber quickly, probably to attend my Committee—is correct that the EC is to be changed to the EU, that would be a significant and fundamental matter, which I have not heard addressed by those on our Front Bench or anyone with whom I have debated the issue over the past couple of years. I would like that to be clarified.
	What made the constitutional treaty a constitution were the fundamental points addressed by the Prime Minister. It is irritating that we have not been able to have an open dialogue during the period of reflection of the past couple of years. At the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister made clear what he believed those points were. I am sorry that the shadow Foreign Secretary did not think that that changed the nature of what is proposed from Europe. Those with whom I have debated the issue in the European Parliament, COSAC meetings and future of Europe debates are certainly of the opinion that if the four points referred to by the Prime Minister are taken out, it will not be the constitution that they voted for. They do not want us to take those points out, but they should be taken out.
	The Prime Minister made the position clear:
	"What it does not need is a Constitutional Treaty or a treaty with the characteristics of a constitution, to put it in the words that the Dutch have used."
	He continued:
	"First, we will not accept a treaty that allows the Charter of Fundamental Rights to change UK law in any way."
	Other countries want that and have spoken strongly in favour of it. If UK law is not affected, we should not stand in the way of those countries, because, as I think the shadow Foreign Secretary was saying, other countries have the right to make their decisions independently and to sign up to them.
	The Prime Minister went on:
	"Secondly, we will not agree to something which displaces the role of British foreign policy and our foreign minister."
	It is wrong to hold out as a threat the idea that those doing peacekeeping on behalf of the EU in, I think,16 countries, should not be supported by some kindof bureaucracy that allows them to continue such fundamental work. That should not replace ours, or our seat at the UN, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that he would not allow that to happen.
	The Prime Minister continued:
	"Thirdly, we will not agree to give up our ability to control our common law and judicial and police system."
	That means that justice and home affairs, as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, should not be transferred from the third to the first pillar, and should not therefore become subject to qualified majority voting. That is fundamental.
	The Prime Minister went on:
	"Fourthly, we will not agree to anything that moves to Qualified Majority Voting, something that can have a big say in our own tax and benefit system".
	In other words, we still have the veto. He made the position clear:
	"we must have the right...to determine it by unanimity."
	Those four fundamental changes have been theresult not just of the comments made by Opposition Members but by members of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and like-minded people across the Chamber. I hope that that will change fundamentally the outcome of the Council meeting. If so, we will be talking not about a new constitution but about another amending treaty to the original treaty of Rome, which does not do any of the threatening things that the shadow Foreign Secretary has suggested. If he were in the Government and negotiating, at any time in the future, with his European counterparts, I am sure that he would agree with most of the common-sense proposals left in the original treaty. Some of them could be stripped out, and some of them, especially proposals relating to the power of parliaments, as opposed to the power of Executives, could be strengthened; I would certainly support that.
	The institutional changes might founder on the Polish problem. When Poland signed up to the treaty of Nice, it was given a great deal, whereby it would have 27 votes, and Germany would have 29. Of course it signed up to that. It was rather strange that the convention then brought forward a proposal that would give Germany twice as many votes as Poland. How can one ask a country to enter a new system, and then change the voting balance? A wondrous system has been suggested whereby the number of votes a country has should be based on the square root of its population. Actually, it is quite simple: if Germany had nine votes, the UK would have eight votes, and Poland would have five and a half—alternatively, those countries would have 18, 16 and 11 votes respectively.
	We need to deal with those institutional matters to get a solution. Agreement should not founder, however, on the myth that if the four fundamental parts of the amending treaty are taken out, a referendum will be required. I do not like referendums; they are not a sensible part of the system of government of this country. We have a liberal press, who would run the referendum according to what they thought the conditions were. With the best will in the world, even people like me, who are Euro-anoraks, could not make people understand the complexities of what we were voting on. It would be an emotional vote.
	I hope that people will stop all this posturing, and wish the Prime Minister well in the coming Council. I hope that he will get an amending treaty that will safeguard Britain's position, and I shall certainly support him in that.

Michael Moore: Our debates on European affairs are among the most reliable features of the parliamentary calendar—reliable in that they turn up on schedule twice a year, and reliable in the predictable way in which they unfold—and that comforting familiarity has been on display in the Chamber again today.
	With a few topical flourishes, today's debate so far has been almost a rerun of the many debates on Europe that littered the period before and after the constitutional treaty finally appeared on the scene in 2004. It has been characterised by precious little being given away by the Secretary of State, save hints at red lines that have been well trailed in the media, and precious little being held back by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who demanded that pretty well anything resembling a treaty—let alone a constitution—should merit a referendum. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) made a characteristically robust speech.
	I make no apologies for entering into the spirit of the afternoon by going over some old ground myself. However, as we have also observed today, there are topics other than the amending treaty that deserve some of our attention, and I hope to touch on one or two of them later.
	This year marks the 50th anniversary of the treaty of Rome. Whatever our thoughts about the future, we ought at the very least to reflect on that, and on what has been achieved in the intervening time. In the course of the expansion of the European Union from six to27 member states, communist and fascist states have been transformed, and the risks of war within Europe have been largely put behind us. Democratic values and institutions have been the priorities for many countries striving to join the European Union, and those values have become entrenched once the countries have joined. Similarly, their prosperity has increased many times as they have become embedded in Europe's trading system and economy of nearly 500 million people.
	Over the last five decades Europe has learnt to work as a whole, and to tackle problems that are beyond the control of individual countries. In an era of globalisation, climate change and international terrorism, the requirement for countries to work together has not dimmed. Britain has been a beneficiary of that co-operation, not least in dealing with terrorism. We should remember that one of the suspects involved in the failed attempts to bomb the London Underground two years ago was extradited from Italy within days of his arrest in Rome. Such a fast-track process has only been made possible by co-operation in justice and home affairs. It is justone example of the importance of being part ofthe European Union. Rather than displaying the ambiguity of some in the Labour party or the barely concealed antipathy of many Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats' approach recognises the importance of the European Union and the importance of the United Kingdom's playing a full part in it.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman spoke of new European member states putting aside some of their communist and fascist past, but does he not agreethat in countries such as Italy, Austria and Poland, proportional representation has allowed political views of that kind to rear their ugly heads again?

Michael Moore: I do not wish to be distracted into a debate on voting systems, tempting as that might be. The point is that by embracing those countries within the European Union, we have strengthened their democratic traditions and the values that underpin their Governments and way of life in this modern era.
	It is now some two years since the French andDutch referendum votes cast Europe into what was politely termed its "period of reflection". The Liberal Democrats welcome the German presidency's efforts to leave behind that period of doubt and uncertainty, particularly as the recent accession of Romania and Bulgaria has only emphasised the inadequacy of the current institutional arrangements. However, we need to move beyond the current navel-gazing: the time has come for the Union to refocus on the real tests in Europe and abroad. Globally, the EU's combined political and financial clout should be used to tackle global problems, not least in furthering international development as a force for good in the fight against poverty.

Michael Moore: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view, but I do not agree with it. I acknowledge that difficulties that may arise, but I believe that when countries can work together they can get more from their pound or euro than they necessarily can on a bilateral basis.
	Europe needs to accept that it must enhance its capabilities on the global stage, and it needs to look carefully at the way in which it does that. In the context of the growth of India and China, Europe still has much to do to address the economic disparity among its member states, and to complete the single market in line with the objectives of the Lisbon agenda. Those are some of the real challenges for Europe and its leaders—challenges that affect everyday lives in our constituencies and those of our European counterparts. It is on those issues that people look for action, not constitutions and their associated trappings.
	To deal with those key issues, however, we need a new institutional settlement. It is unsustainable to continue arrangements designed for a Union of six nations when there are now 27. There are obviousareas crying out for reform. For a start, it is essential for the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality to be put explicitly at the heart of the Union and its operation. We desperately need to tackle the lack of transparency in the institutions, and to clarify the roles of European and national Parliaments.
	It is pretty obvious that the Union needs more continuity and direction in delivering its agenda, so it makes sense to replace the six-month rotating presidency with a longer-lasting arrangement. Equally, the large—to an increasingly embarrassing degree—Commission creates unnecessary bureaucracy, and should be slimmed down to create a more efficient and effective body. There is surely no disagreement about the fact that we need more efficiency, effectiveness and transparency in the Union. The need for institutional reform should unite us all. If only!
	Three years ago we supported the constitutional treaty as a package that was, on balance, in the interests of Britain and the European Union as a whole. The treaty was certainly not perfect, however, and itraised important constitutional questions. Indeed, we believed that it contained some measures that altered the balance of power between the Union's institutions and the member states sufficiently to require a referendum.
	There are many reports on the current state of negotiations on the successor treaty, but we do not know for certain what will be presented at the Council meeting this weekend. The Foreign Secretary repeated today what she has said in the past—that she will not reveal her negotiating position in public—but, as the shadow Foreign Secretary observed, not everyone has been quite so discreet. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have allowed the media to know their views, which have been well trailed by Members who have spoken today. They are all perfectly valid, but there is a rather hackneyed feel to them. That is not surprising, as they bear more than a passing resemblance to the red lines that were set out—and not breached, the Government told us, thanks to opt-outs and emergency brakes—in the original constitutional treaty. It is surely more than a little implausible that a mini-version of that treaty will seek to breach them now. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said, the red lines could more honestly be described as red herrings.

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into dangerous territory. I have seen the mandate—it has been kicked around—and there are many different interpretations of it. As I will come on to say, we will do best to wait and see the actual documents before making judgments, rather than get ahead of ourselves.
	If the outline—or the detail—of an amending treaty emerges from the summit this weekend, that will be welcome. Of course, if the Government do not succeed in their declared aim of much reducing the scope of the treaty, we will have to consider carefully how it should be ratified. We firmly believe that any significant changes, other than overdue institutional alterations, ought not to be introduced by stealth, and we will have to assess the text carefully to determine if a referendum is the appropriate way forward again. We cannot make that assessment at this stage. We will undoubtedly return to this issue time and again. We seem cursed to do so—and no doubt an excited public can barely wait.
	The summit has an ambitious agenda, but we must hope that time will be found to discuss some pressing foreign policy issues. In particular, there ought to be an urgent discussion about the situation in Kosovo. Some eight years have now passed since NATO intervenedto halt the murderous campaigns by Serbia. The "transitional arrangements" which were put in place then are now unsustainable. As many others have done, I visited Kosovo earlier this year, and the tension there was obvious. It is clear that the desire for independence and autonomy cannot be contained indefinitely. If there is no progress, there is a genuine risk of a new crisis.
	We know that there are difficulties in the Security Council about the way forward. There are reports in today's press about the latest initiative; perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his speech. We must be careful, particularly in the light of Russia's position. The threat of the veto remains a key obstacle. There is a danger that the carefully worked out proposals put forward by Martti Ahtisaari will be scuppered.
	We have a particular responsibility to the people of Kosovo, who are fellow Europeans. The European Union is central to the future status of Kosovo. Preparations for civilian support for the Administration are already under way and any new settlement is likely to be policed by an EU mission. It is therefore imperative that the European Council agree a robust position that can withstand Russian and Serbian attempts to prevent a solution. Britain's and Europe's interests in this dispute and in the region are clear and legitimate. The intervention in Kosovo was one of the high points of the Prime Minister's foreign policy, but it remains unfinished business.
	There is one other foreign policy issue that is rarely far from our minds, and which will demand time from the heads of Government this weekend. The serious and destabilising events in the occupied territories in the past fortnight have rightly already occupied some of our time in the House this week. Financial aid is essential to the ordinary Palestinians, who are most affected by these events but who have least say in them. Over the past year, aid has been severely restricted as a result of Hamas winning the Palestinian elections,with the Israelis holding back tax revenues and the European Union joining others in restricting theflow of funds through the temporary international mechanism.
	There are serious problems with Hamas; we cannot duck that. In particular, its stated intent to obliterate the state of Israel is repugnant. But international attempts to force it to recognise Israel or to force it out of office have so far failed, and now the military wing of the organisation has asserted itself over the political wing. Hamas and Fatah are solely responsible forthe violence of recent times, but the international community has failed to make any progress on the key Quartet principles by marginalising the political wing of Hamas.
	Peace, the recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements are nowhere in sight. There will have to be a new approach when the immediate priority of humanitarian aid is resolved. The United States, Israel and the European Union have already decidedto restore direct funding to the Palestinian Authority and its emergency Government, which we welcome. However, the new reality in Palestine is that there are two Governments: one in Gaza and one in the west bank. Given that the emergency Government have little or no influence in Gaza, it is essential that the European Union explore ways to ensure that vital aid reaches the desperate and impoverished people there as well. That must be a priority for the European leaders later this week.
	The risk of failure at this week's summit is high. Europe desperately needs to show that it has found a new direction and sense of purpose after two years of introspection. It needs to show that it can lead on the key foreign policy issues of the day. While leadership in our country is changing hands, we cannot afford to be distracted. More than ever, it is vital that the United Kingdom finally play a central part in Europe and help to make a new European Union a reality.

Mike Gapes: Last July, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs published a report on developments in the European Union, in which we said:
	"Although the Treaty is not dead, it is comatose and on life support. At some point, Europe's leaders are going to have to decide whether to switch it off. We conclude that the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is unlikely ever to come into force, although attempts may be made to enact some of its provisions by other means."
	The Foreign Secretary yesterday told the Select Committee that many EU countries had been in denial about the facts that we pointed out. I have to say that not every member of our Government was saying last year that the treaty was dead; there was obviously a diplomatic reluctance to say so, even though everyone in this country knew that there was no prospect of a treaty that had been rejected in France and the Netherlands being endorsed in the United Kingdom.
	We are where we are, and the negotiations this weekend will be difficult. Not only have 18 countries ratified the constitutional treaty, but about three others would do so through their Parliaments if they thought that there was any point. Other Governments, including ours, are in a different situation. The French and the Dutch rejected the treaty, the Poles have a particular position and the Czech Government also have some problems. It is not only the UK that has difficulties, red lines or concerns, but it will not be easy to get agreement on the basis of what has been put forward so far.
	I have read the draft intergovernmental conference mandate document produced by the German presidency that was made available yesterday, and I have studied certain aspects of it. It is unfortunate that Members of this House and parliamentarians across Europe have had such a late opportunity to consider it. As I have already said, I believe that whatever comes out of the negotiations at the weekend, if it is decided that we in this country will not conduct a ratification process by means of a referendum, there must be thorough engagement by parliamentarians. I do not like referendums. I agree with Clement Attlee's remarks about devices of demagogues and dictators—a phrase that Baroness Thatcher also used in a debate in this place.
	We need Parliament to be sovereign on these matters—Parliament as the expression of the popular will, able to engage in, debate and consider such provisions clause by clause. If and when we get something that can be put forward for ratification, it is essential that we have a parliamentary process leading up to the intergovernmental conference envisaged under the Portuguese presidency.
	If that conference is not to be held until September, October or even November, we need to have established a mechanism in the meantime. If something tangible emerges next week, I will consult my Committee colleagues about how we can consider such a process, even through the recess. We have experience of that: the Minister for the Middle East came before our Committee last September, when the House was in recess. I cannot give an undertaking in that regard because my Committee will have to take the decision, but I certainly hope that Parliament will consider these proposals in detail before any ratification processis concluded, and before the intergovernmental conference is held. The long summer recess does present a difficulty, given that the Portuguese presidency starts at the beginning of July.

Kelvin Hopkins: Although I am absolutely in favour of a referendum, I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's view that we should have a strong debate before any agreement is reached. However, given what happened at the end of the British presidency, when the Prime Minister at the last minute gave away a dealon the budget without reference to anybody and astonished his fellow leaders in the European Union, does my hon. Friend fear that that might happen again?

Mike Gapes: No, I am not fearful of that, becauseI believe that these issues have been flagged up sufficiently. I am prepared to accept the Foreign Secretary's assurance that there will be no agreement, except on the basis that she outlined. We will have to wait to see what happens next week.
	We hope that we can engage in detail in this process, both up to the beginning of the Portuguese presidency and beyond. It is clear that getting such legislation through this House will not happen quickly—it must also go through the other place—so intensive debate into 2008 will, presumably, be required, taking up many hours. I remember well the hon. Member for Stafford, who is sitting on the Back Benches—

David Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an irony that in many cases those countries have given up rule from Moscow and swapped it for rule from Brussels. Their liberation was an immensely important event in the history of Europe. However, having achieved self-government, they are now in the process of giving it up.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman repeated what the Government often say, which is that we need a new rulebook because we cannot operate with 27 members under a rulebook designed for six. That is false. The Prime Minister said that we would suffer deadlock or paralysis if we did not have the constitution. In fact, the pace and volume of European Union businesshas increased with every round of enlargement. The European Scrutiny Committee has to deal weekly with a blizzard of new directives, regulations, proposals and decisions from Brussels. The idea that we need more majority voting for more laws is a fantasy. Let us hear no more about why we need this new treaty, or whatever it is called, to make Europe work effectively.
	We have on our hands a massive extension of majority voting that, by definition, is a diminution in the powers of this House. It means that we will not be able to block unpleasant or unwelcome proposals. The constitution brought majority voting into 63 new areas, which is far more than any other treaty. The Single European Act, under Mrs. Thatcher, introduced it into 12 new areas.
	The red lines that the Prime Minister has drawn refer to only two extensions that he does not want—those into tax and social security. He has carefully crafted those red lines so that he can claim a triumph. However, I presume that all the other extensions of majority voting will be accepted. They are certainly not ruled out in the German document, of which we have only just received a copy.
	The Foreign Secretary appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, but—as we have heard—she said nothing. She had nothing to say. She said that no substantive discussions had taken place, thus repeating her earlier remarks, but we know that the Prime Minister has been having discussions with other Heads of Government, and, back in January, two officials were appointed to negotiate on this very text. The sad fact is that the Foreign Office has been cut out of the discussions. I find it very sad that at a time when Europe is crying out for reform—there is a coalition position on the need for reform—the Foreign Office has nothing to say about it.
	We know that Europe is inefficient, wasteful and has lost the confidence of the public, but all that the Foreign Secretary does is sit tight, let the worst happen and then try to make the best of it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am under some time pressure but, as he knows, I respect his views.
	Incidentally, I hope that the Minister for Europe, who is in his place, goes to the conference tomorrow. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that she did not know whether he was going. I was Minister for Europe once and I went to all the summits. It would be a further denial of democratic accountability if the Minister for Europe were not among the army of officials and diplomats who go to the summits. Again, that is a sad reflection on the status of the Foreign Office in the negotiations.
	The German presidency document, which we have only just seen, includes some radical proposals, such as the single legal personality. We know that the Government do not like that. It is referred to specifically in the document, which means that the present intergovernmental pillars of the European Union are to be collapsed, in favour of a single legal personality, so that such matters as policing and criminal justice would be decided by majority voting. The Home Office has recently complained about how its laws, especially anti-terrorism measures, have been overridden by the European convention on human rights, so how can the Government even contemplate any reference to the even stricter EU charter of fundamental rights—also in the German document—or any extension of majority voting into that area? It would be supervised by the European Court of Justice, which would decide any dispute. At a time when we are already feeling the pressure of having our judgments about our own security overridden by the European Union, the Government will apparently sign up to a further massive extension.
	I am one of the sad people who occasionally looks at the constitutional text, which runs to 511 pages. We know that the Prime Minister has four red lines, so some of the pages may be removed, but what will happen to the other 500-odd pages? Do the Government agree with them? There is nothing inthe German IGC text that suggests that the rest of the constitution is to be forgotten. Thus we will have, by the back door, the revival of the great majority ofthe constitutional text—without it being called a constitution, of course. It includes such things as an energy chapter; the security and marketing of energy is to come under the EU.
	Now, I am an internationalist. I believe in reaching treaty agreements with states all over the world on matters such as climate change, global warming, energy, extradition and global security, but that is quite different from irrevocably handing over powers to a law-making body that will decide such matters on our behalf by majority voting. Those difficulties can be solved only by a referendum, as was promised by the Prime Minister. The sorry story of the zig-zags towards and away from national referendums is a text-book example of the victory of expediency and party advantage over the national interest.
	During the Convention on the Future of Europe, the Government steadfastly and emphatically opposedany referendum, then did a sudden U-turn. The parliamentary Labour party, which had voted against a referendum one week, a few weeks later trooped through the Division Lobby in favour of one. Then the French said no in their referendum, so the Prime Minister changed his mind and said that Britain would not have one. Then the Labour party manifesto said that there should be a referendum on these matters, but recently the party has gone back on that and said that no referendum would be held. Now, it appears that it is saying that there may be a referendum.
	That is not the way to deal with an electorate already sensitised to the loss of their powers and whose disillusionment about politics and the political process is very deep. The Prime Minister should keep his promise on the referendum. He wanted to put the matter, although not the red-line issues, to a national vote. He said:
	"Let the issue be put and let the battle be joined."—[ Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 430, c. 157.]
	I want to make a final point, about the transfer of power to which I have referred already. It is not some dry, academic exercise but has to do with the essence of democracy. Who makes decisions, and where? To whom are they accountable? Are they voted in, and can they be removed? Those are the questions that need to be answered, and they are crucial. This House is a forum where majorities come and go and Governments change, where laws are enacted and withdrawn. That is what democracy is about. Handing such matters over to another jurisdiction, irrevocably, means that we will be losing the powers of the people we represent. We should let them decide whether they want the constitution.

Austin Mitchell: First, I must say how much I enjoy these six-monthly games between the Eurocreeps and the Eurolags. They are always an entertainment, and it is always interesting to participate in a regurgitation, each time in a new light, of arguments that we have been making for the past25 or 30 years.
	At the moment, we face a new danger. We are formulating our views on the European constitutional treaty, but in a couple of days decisions will be taken that will remain largely uninfluenced by those views. Then, as usual, we shall find that the Government have climbed down from their good intentions and that they are putting to us a treaty that is less than acceptable.
	This six-monthly reunion is a poignant moment. It comes at the end of what was supposed to be a period of reflection that turned into a comedy hour reminiscent of the "Dead Parrot" sketch in "Monty Python". The EU is trying to breathe new life into a dead parrot. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) said that Europe was being led in a new direction, but the truth is that it is being led back into the dead-end street that it tried and failed to enter in 2004.
	The period of reflection became a prelude to the attempt to give a new birth certificate to what is nominally a new constitution. The German Chancellor, Mrs. Merkel, has made what is happening absolutely clear. She has taken away the trimmings of the constitution, and put up some sops for the British Government to knock down easily, as long as they accept the substance of the proposals—which bring back the old constitution in the new form of a treaty. In fact, the old constitution was a treaty too, and the new proposals adopt the same form.
	Of course, the word "constitution" is not used. To my great regret, the national anthem of the EU has gone too. I have a great fondness for Beethoven's Ninth, which was also the national anthem of the failed Rhodesian state under Iain Smith. It has been misused many times, by Europe and various other entities, but I like the music and regret its deletion.
	However, dropping the trimmings means nothing, as the promised treaty creates a legal entity to which this country will surrender some of its sovereign powers. We are bringing in by the back door what the electors in France and Holland threw out by the front. Our electors, if allowed to, would do the same.
	I cannot see why the German Chancellor is going down this path, as Germany's economic problems have been caused by the euro. As the dollar falls, the euro is bound to rise, thus making German industry and exports less competitive. The funny money flowingout of the dollar will go into the euro, and the consequential economic damage in Germany, which is already precluded from having the big expansion of demand needed to stimulate its economy, will be severe. Instead of dealing with Germany's real problem, however, Mrs. Merkel is determined to go down the dead-end street that is the constitution and give the kiss of half life to the dead treaty.

Quentin Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the German economy is currently growing at2.7 or 2.8 per cent. per annum? That is roughly the same as the British economy.

Austin Mitchell: Well, that has had a deflationary effect. I am alarmed by the rise in the euro. It will go on, because the dollar will continue to fall, and it is a simple statement of fact that a higher euro will damage the German economy. It has certainly damaged the French economy, and Germany exports a lot to France, so the two countries are tied together to that extent.
	All the arguments for trying to revive the dead treaty have been put forward today, although the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk added some new ones, saying that we must agree to the new proposal in order to help Kosovo and deal with Hamas. I had not thought those matters were pertinent to the constitution, but all the other arguments are being trundled out.
	Yet Europe moves in mysterious ways, even if itdoes not perform any wonders, and what has been happening is a perfect illustration of that. The EU constitution is an artefact and product of the European elite, who for a long time have imposed their views on the people of Europe. If the European people do not like the elite's views, that is too bad: if they vote against a treaty, let them have another referendum and give them a chance to rethink. Alternatively, the result of the original referendum can be interpreted as a vote on another issue, and not on the pristine beauties of the constitution.
	The constitution is an elite artefact and committing our country to it is to commit ourselves to the sort of imposition that I have described. It is the opposite of democracy; it is plutocracy as a system of government gone mad.

Austin Mitchell: I do not see why such a clarificationis necessary. The tenor of my argument is that the constitution is unnecessary, and that it is being foisted on British and European opinion in an attempt to reintroduce it by the back door without a referendum. If that is not clear, I despair. The argument is not about the EU: it is about whether we should go further down the dead-end street of a stultifying constitution that will increase the power of the centre and diminish the sovereignty of the EU's component parts. That is the essence of my argument.
	No doubt at the end of the day, there will be a treaty called a constitution that will go further towards creating a Eurostate as a legal entity, which will mean further sacrifices of UK sovereignty. Our Government said that there are four red lines that must not be crossed—ils ne passeront pas. Unfortunately, they are an attenuated version of the six red lines we laid down in 2004, and although we did not actually achieve them then the Prime Minister still accepted the constitution and signed it. Now we are down to four red lines and I fear they will be surrendered just like the others. Two of the 2004 red lines have already been surrendered by acceptance of the constitution.
	We have accepted even more than that in our efforts to show good will to Europe. At the end of the British presidency we accepted a doubling of our net contribution over the next seven years, which will be a horrendous burden on the British economy, yet it was blithely accepted in return for concessions on the common agricultural policy that we cannot obtain because it will not be renegotiated until 2013. That indicates a state of mind about Europe that gives me no great faith in the stand that is being taken.
	A report from the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies analysed and compared the comments of European leaders. It noted:
	"Blair's influence is typically seen as less extensive than his spin-doctors make it seem, and with the important exceptions of the Lisbon process and transatlantic issues"—
	that is, Iraq—
	"he is not really in the game, although destroying the games of others."
	That describes a very unsuccessful performance, which I hope will not be repeated at the dawn of socialism next Thursday.

Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We would have been in a stronger negotiating position now if we had not been waffling about whether to have a referendum but had said adamantly that we would put the treaty to a referendum of the British people.It would have been clear that we would never getthe British people to accept large chunks of the constitution, so as unanimous agreement was needed our negotiating position would have been stronger and the demands on the British Government would have been less. Our inability to take a firm negotiating position has weakened us all along.
	I was not excited by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that we shall not agreeto any treaty that requires a referendum. The Prime Minister has already told us—last week—that the treaty does not require a referendum so there will not be one, thereby abdicating the position before we had even reached it. We should have insisted on a referendum, because that is necessary for any sacrifice of the sovereignty and powers of the British people. We are giving up their powers, not ours. We are abdicating our responsibilities to them.
	I regret the fact that in consideration of matters European the Labour party and, to a degree, the House do not speak for England. Our Euro-enthusiasm does not represent the people of the UK. I know that critics say that the people of this country are misled by Murdoch and Dacre, but that is to assume that the people are fools. In fact, they have basic instincts about Europe and they want no further surrender of powers. If we reckon to abdicate those powers without consulting the people we shall produce alienation and division that will tell against us in the long term.
	My fear is that we shall climb down, as we did in 1939. Once again, Poland is on the front line. We are not even promising to come its aid this time, although it would be commendable if we did so; we are leaving the fighting to Poland and not putting up a very convincing argument.
	Next week we shall probably discover that the red lines have turned orange and possibly even green, because Europe is reinventing itself as an environmental organisation that will lead the battle against climate change. The Government have the voting strength to put through almost anything they want, but if they accept the treaty that calls itself a constitution two problems will arise. First, we shall weaken UK sovereignty and hand over to the European state powers that belong to the British people. We shall strengthen the development of a European superstate and frustrate the possibility, which exists at present, of Europe developing along a new path, of looser and more flexible associations that are appropriate to a Europe of 27, and not a Europe dominated by France and Germany as it has always been. I want Europe to develop in a natural fashion, not to have solutions imposed on it by the European bureaucracy and the two dominant powers—France and Germany.
	The second problem, which is more important for us, is that we shall increase the alienation of the British public. They no longer believe us and our conversations and statements about Europe are one of the main reasons why they do not believe politicians. We promise one thing but another thing happens. We talk in incomprehensible gobbledegook about transferring powers from an intergovernmental pillar to a bill of rights that is not a bill of rights, and to a court that will not adjudicate on them—although it almost certainly will. The whole dialogue is incomprehensible, and what the public see is a betrayal of their deepest instincts, which are not enthusiastic about Europe. The public are sceptical; they are saying, "Thus far and no further", which is what we should be saying about the treaty.

Charles Kennedy: Listening to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), my great personal friend of more than 20 years, with whom I share almost 25 years coterminous service in the House, I reflected that this is the first time that we have spoken back to back. He will understand me when I say that the ghost missing from this feast is Sir Julian Critchley—we miss him much.
	Although as I speak from an unashamedly pro-European perspective, I largely and fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, there is none the less a sense in British politics and in wider European politics that one door has closed, or is closing, and another one could be opening. The closing door is the ending of the Blair premiership, mirrored by recent events on the continent—the leadership changes in France, Germany and Italy, and even in Belgium—and the failed referendums following the earlier votes cast by the French and the Dutch.
	As has been said before, despite the big obstacles that face us, Europe now has the potential for a fresh start. We have heard that phrase many times over the years, but we now have a real opportunity, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the terminology and conduct of the debate, and the incomprehensibility of much of it, is in itself enough to put people off, never mind judging the merits or demerits of particular arguments. We need the arguments to be properly engaged, especially those of us on the pro-European side, because we have too often been guilty of allowing much of the case to go by default.
	It is not good enough for us to lament the fact that we have a Eurosceptic press in this country, because Parliament could be doing a lot of things—they were referred to during the Foreign Secretary's speech—that would improve the substance and quality of the debate about the Europe. For example, we could have a regular designated European issues day on the Floor of the House, where many of the things that go through, and are never reported or analysed properly outside certain hard-working Committees and never really get the intensity of scrutiny that they should command, could be much more in the public gaze. We could have a Secretary of State for Europe operating at Cabinet level. I certainly agree that it would be extraordinary if the Minister for Europe were not at the summit. I hope that he can confirm that he will definitely attend, because it would be strange indeed were he not todo so.
	Let us consider our own procedures in the House. I remember being here for Question Time one Monday afternoon at half-past two, all those years ago. The Berlin wall had come down that weekend. William Waldegrave was the Minister at the Dispatch Box and an emergency request was moved by my colleague at the time, Russell Johnston MP, as he then was, saying that surely the House of Commons could debate the implications of that monumental development, which was way beyond our wildest imaginings—but alas no. Speaker Weatherill was very sympathetic, but the procedures of the British House of Commons did not allow us to discuss in the mother of Parliaments the fall of the Berlin wall the Monday after the weekend it happened. We are right to make our critiques of Europe, but we should look in the mirror some times and consider the way in which we do things here,as well.

Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct and I happy to say so. Without wishing to be overly partisan, I have to say that that shows a clearer reading of the situation following the fall of the Berlin wall, vis-à-vis the former East Germany and West Germany, than Mrs. Thatcher achieved at the time—if the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) recalls his history.

Wayne David: On the point about improving the procedures of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it might be worth exploringthe possibility of establishing a European Grand Committee to bring together Members of this House and of another place, Members of the European Parliament and perhaps our British Commissioner from time to time?

Charles Kennedy: In the words of the song, "What a swell party that is." Anything that gave greater legitimacy to those with an elected parliamentary position—or I suppose, where the House of Lordsis concerned, an as yet unelected parliamentary position—and enabled them to come together and scrutinise what is coming out of the European Commission would be a healthy development. Under the new Prime Minister—I want to refer to him in a moment—we may see some more imaginative thinking in that respect.
	There is no doubt that every British premiership—of successive parties—since de Gaulle famously first said "Non" to Macmillan has been profoundly affected by Britain's role in Europe. We saw that with the success of Edward Heath in getting us in and with Harold Wilson's machinations in holding his party together while Callaghan carried out the supposed renegotiation—whether it was or was not—and the referendum that followed. We saw it with Mrs. Thatcher's rather schizophrenic relationship with Europe. She was the person who pushed through the single market—in reality, probably something more far reaching than anything that will be decided this coming weekend—but at the same time she was an arch Eurosceptic. We saw it with John Major, who started out by being friends with Helmut Kohl and by saying that we must be at the heart of Europe but who ended up in the quagmire of Maastricht. Those of us who were involved remember that night without end, when the Conservative nightwatchmen, in particular, kept the House going and going—quite properly—using parliamentary procedures to put their case.
	In terms of the coming summit and the change of premiership in our country that accompanies it, I want to point out that the present Prime Minister missed two golden opportunities if not to finalise, certainly to largely settle down much of the European debate in domestic British politics. Following the 1997 general election victory, I think he could have carried a referendum on Europe. That is also true of the 2001 general election victory. The referendum might have been on the principle of a single currency or, later on, the issue of a constitution. Either way, he would have carried the case. More lately, British politics has been largely a case of waiting for Gordon. However, with the current Prime Minister, it has been a case of "Waiting for Godot" in so far as European policy has been a two-act play—the only problem is nothing happened twice. I hope that the new Prime Minister will learn that lesson.
	The present Prime Minister became a bit like the Grand Old Duke of York. He kept assembling all the pro-European forces from across the political spectrum and outside formal party politics. He marched us up to the top of the hill on more than one occasion, only to march us all down again. It was dispiriting and a great waste of time. My neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who was involved with Britain in Europe, will remember as vividly as I do the high hopes at the launch in December 2001. What became of it all? It was a campaign, but it did not appear to have a figurehead or a cause, even though there was so much talent available.
	Broadly speaking I endorse the Government's red lines and their stance on the referendum generally—that is, I did until I heard the Foreign Secretary today. I do not know whether this is deliberate or whether it is simply a cock up, but over the last week every time a Minister, from the Prime Minister downwards, has opened their mouth about a referendum—this could be clever, subtle tactics, although I have to say I am not sure about that—the picture has become more muddied. Every utterance seems hellbent on sowing more seeds of confusion about the Government's position.
	I have always said to my friends on the Eurosceptic end of the argument that those who are sceptical—honourably so—about Europe should be most in favour of the referendum on the constitution, as they are now, but that they should argue for a constitution. A constitution is the one thing that will codify properly for the first time what Europe can and cannot do, where the line of accountability falls, what the jurisdiction is and what the right of appeal mechanism for individual citizens will be if they feel that they have been let down, abused, or undermined in terms of their civic rights as a result of a European institution.
	When I was our party's European spokesman, I voted on the issue in a free vote 15 years ago. The vote was split about 50:50. Interestingly, it was a generational split. People such as Russell Johnston, David Steel and Bob Maclennan voted against a referendum on Maastricht. Those of us of a slightly younger generation voted for a referendum. None the less, I took the view then and I still do now that, at some point, perhaps not as a result of this weekend's machinations—we will see what if anything emerges from this country's point of view, and I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said—but as surely as night follows day, there will have to be some kind of European referendum within domestic British politics. Perhaps it will not be on this issue. There was no referendum on the currency issue. Perhaps there will be a referendum on something else in a few years' time, but, one way or another, we have to lance the boil when it comes to the European issue. I cannot see how we are ever going to achieve that either in this forum, as we go about our discussions on European policy, or in the parliamentary European forum, where there are such frustrations built in.
	I hope that the new Prime Minister will provide leadership. That leadership is all the more essential, because the leadership of the Conservative party, as the second half of this Parliament wears on, is goingto veer more and more—for reasons that we understand—in a UK Independence party direction. That is no good for proper engagement on the issues of substance. Indeed, the most startling comment made by the shadow Foreign Secretary was an almost throwaway aside towards the end of his speech, when he said that the Conservative party saw no need to revise or revisit the existing arrangements for the27 members of Europe because the EU was working perfectly well from that point of view. Are we to understand that the British Conservative party wants to keep a rotating EU presidency while there are27 members of the EU, with perhaps more to come in a few years? Does that make sense? Do we want a Commission of that size? Have the Conservatives spoken to people in the Commission who say that one of the net effects of the way in which things are constituted with 27 Commissioners—everyone must have their slice of pie and their national Commissioner—in addition to the slowness and bureaucracy attached to such a large Commission, is the fact that Mr. Barroso, the President of the Commission, inevitably brings to himself more authority because the body is too big to function properly? Unless the Commission's present arrangements are streamlined, it will become less democratic than it would be as a result of implementing the practical issues that must be considered.
	I hope that the Government will adopt a sensible, constructive approach and I wish them well in the coming discussions. A good and true friend, which our country should be to Europe, is not an uncritical one. However, simply standing on the sidelines berating everything that emerges from Brussels without a sensible reform package cannot be a good way forward, either. In the longer term, we need the broad pro-European forces in Britain to regroup and re-engage. If that does not happen, our status as a country will diminish in Europe and the world. We will thus suffer economically and politically. That would be bad for not only our domestic aims, but our wider global aims and aspirations. There is therefore a need to inject fresh energy, idealism and integrity into our domestic European debate. If we did that, it would be beneficial for UK politics in general.

Nia Griffith: At this point of the debate, hon. Members have already made many valid points. I welcomed the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which she outlined the areas that should remain the concern of individual nations. She also mentioned areas on which there is already EU co-operation. I do not wish to repeat the excellent clarification of the situation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman ofthe European Scrutiny Committee. Both he and the Foreign Secretary are aware of, and sensitive to, the need to find an appropriate level for decision making.
	The Government have recognised and implemented the principle of bringing decision making as close to the people as possible, both through the devolution settlement and the Government of Wales Act 2006, which enables the Assembly to reflect the will of the people in the new legislative competence orders. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has been working hard on both the Government's local government legislation and making the Sustainable Communities Bill workable. Again, he has the aim of practically bringing power as close to the people as possible.
	I welcome the Government's cautious approach to the EU negotiations. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not be signing away the so-called red line issues. He will be aware of the feelings of the House. I have no doubt that the negotiations will be difficult because the member states have such differing views. However, there might be room for some sort of tidying-up measures, and there is certainly a need to make the presidency more cohesive. The six-month presidency can lead to things becoming fragmented, depending on the negotiations between countries at the time of handover.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said, we need to ensure that we strengthen the role of national Parliaments. At the recent COSAC meeting that I attended, we found that the Dutch and the French were strong allies on that issue. Their parliamentary delegations were supportive of the idea of national Parliaments having greater involvement. That was extremely significant because they had probably studied the constitution, as it first was, in more detail than any other EU colleagues. They clearly see the need for a strong voice for national Parliaments.
	With such focus on the constitution, I would not want us to forget the important matters on which we are already co-operating, one of which is tackling climate change. We must ensure that the EU emissions trading scheme is effective. Its first phase unfortunately got a bad reputation because of some Governments' lax approach to setting appropriate emissions levels. I have the privilege of being a member of the Committee that is considering the draft Climate Change Bill. We have taken evidence from a broad range of interested parties, including leaders in business and manufacturing. They welcome the framework of the Bill and its target of a 60 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050. However, many refer to the importance of EU and worldwide attempts to limit emissions. When we took evidence by video link from California, it was clear that people there also valued EU initiatives in the field.
	The Foreign Secretary has a detailed understanding of the EU emissions trading scheme, so I ask her to use her influence with her colleagues in the Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and her role in Europe to help to ensure that the scheme is appropriately implemented throughout Europe so that a level playing field is created for UK industry. She will be well aware that the effectiveness of the first phase of the ETS was seriously marred by the fact that some EU countries allocated carbon quotas too generously. It is important that a Union of comparatively rich and influential countries takes a lead on the issue.
	Even under existing arrangements, there has been helpful co-operation on issues such as terrorism, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) said. We need to use the existing channels so that we can co-operate on cross-border crime. In particular, we must tackle the despicable practice of human trafficking, the very existence of which is a real disgrace to a European Union that likes to pride itself on its progressive and civilised traditions. While it is important that we are not blind to the shortcomings of the EU, we must continue to use the existing channels to tackle the major issues that concern us all.

Quentin Davies: We all know people who have identity crises of one kind or another. They do not really know what sort of people they want to be, what their values are, or what sort of life they want to lead. Such people are among our friends and relations. Some do not know whether to get married, while others do not know whether they should get divorced. Some do not really like the job that they are doing, but cannot think of one that they would rather do, while others cannot quite make up their mind about where they want to live. On the whole, most of us treat such people sympathetically. We tend to hope that with the passage of time and the advent of maturity, they will be able to sort things out and feel happy in a role that they have consciously chosen for themselves.
	When it comes to our membership of the European Union, that description sadly applies to a large number of people in this country and the majority of members of my party, both on these Benches and in the country as a whole. Of course, there are many exceptions on both sides of the argument. I pay tribute to colleagues such my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), who have always taken part in these debates. Those men know very clearly where they stand on this issue and have taken immense time and trouble over 20 years to master the brief. They have expended energy, and when their stance was not in fashion in the party they suffered due to the damage caused to their careers and the great pressure that their colleagues exerted on them. However, they have not been put off standing up to speak what they believe to be the truth that they feel they must proclaim to the House and the nation. I sincerely admire them for that; they are great parliamentarians. Other colleagues have signed some sort of petition or undertaking calling for us to get out of the European Union. Still other colleagues have not signed, but have put it about that they sympathise with that call.
	On the other side of the party, there are those of us who have a long track record in standing up for the European Union and who believe that it is themost magnificent asset created by the generation immediately preceding us, which we should do everything possible to nurture, strengthen and hand on to future generations in an even more effective and democratic state. The European Union has, after all, been the framework in which we have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity in western Europe over the past two generations. It has been a major factor for world peace and a pole of stability in the world. It is the institution that has enabled countries to make an astonishingly successful and rapid transition from communism to democracy, and it has diffused and dissolved the appalling ethnic and national conflicts in eastern Europe that have been endemic for centuries.
	It is now clear to us that the European Union is the only vehicle available to us to address the major challenges and achieve our major collective purposes in the years ahead. Among those challenges are global warming—which has rightly been mentioned so often in the House this afternoon—energy security, and relationships with difficult, unpredictable, autocratic Governments in countries such as Russia and Iran.
	It is an inconceivably naïve illusion that such countries or Governments, or those of India or China, would take much notice these days of Her Britannic Majesty's ambassador or Her Britannic Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs sending them a note indicating that he or she was not entirely happy with their conduct. Such things would have worked well 100 years ago, but they do not work now.
	If we want to contribute to a world trade agreement; perhaps to a global emissions trading scheme in due course; or, in the immediate future, to get acceptance for quotas for carbon emissions, which we desperately need; and if we want to have an impact on world terrorism or world poverty, we can no longer use the purely national instruments and institutions that we used with great pride for centuries. There is a natural human tendency not to adapt to new conditions—a natural psychological inertia. Many people are very attached to those institutions and believe that they represent the end of the story.
	I very much hope that the current position may change. Ever since I have been in the House I have hoped that people would wake up and recognise that the idea of one foot in, one foot out makes no sense. That is the most hopeless and helpless approach to getting the best out of any relationship in life or any institution. One cannot run a family, a business or a country that way, and one cannot get the best out of the European Union that way. As a country, we must grow up and decide which way we are going.
	If we are staying in the European Union—my colleagues on the Front Bench are not currently calling for us to leave it—let us throw ourselves into it with wholehearted commitment, not agreeing to anything that happens to be suggested, but making it clear that we are thoroughly committed to the success of the venture, that we are 100 per cent. part of it, and that we recognise it as essential for achieving our national purposes in the future. At that point, we should say clearly that we want to take a pragmatic view about the powers, rule changes or mechanisms that need to be revised from time to time.
	It is absurd to say that there should not be another instance of qualified majority voting. "No more qualified majority voting," I hear my hon. Friends saying from the Front Bench. "We are not going for that. It is beyond the pale. No more powers should go to Brussels." That is not a pragmatic view—it is a dogmatic view that ill serves the interests of this country. There are many situations in which it is very much in the national interest that there should be more qualified majority voting. That goes for many parts of the third pillar, justice and home affairs. We should be having a pragmatic argument, not an essentially childish argument about no more of a particular type of decision-making mechanism.
	The great Margaret Thatcher did not believe that. She brought in and pushed through the House aSingle European Act, which introduced the concept of qualified majority voting. Now the heirs and successors of the great Margaret Thatcher are saying mindlessly, "No, no, no. No more increases in qualified majority voting. Whether or not that is in the national interest, we are dogmatically opposed to it." I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on the Front Bench that I have no sympathy with that point of view. I cannot and will not go along with it. I hope that he appreciates that.
	Let me deal with some of the concrete opportunities that we have in the next few days at the European summit for real progress in making that valuable institution even more effective. It is abject nonsense to say that there are no practical reasons for the proposals for new mechanisms and rule changes. For example, the Commission currently consists of 27 people. A number of us in the House have sat on the boards of quoted companies. I cannot conceive of a board of a company comprising 27 people and operating effectively. It defies imagination. It is glaringly obvious that something needs to be done about that. We have an opportunity in the next few days, so let us do so.
	I take as another example the External Relations Commissioner and the High Representative. I havethe honour to sit on the International Development Committee and I see the whole time how dysfunctional that distinction is. Developing countries—the same goes for developed countries, although I do not happen to get involved so much in that context—need an interlocutor from the European Union who can take part in the same conversation, in the same room, at the same time about the whole range of issues that need to be discussed between us, including aid and trade, which are the responsibility of the External Relations Commissioner, and the human rights issues, foreign policy, anti-terrorism measures and so on, which are the responsibility of the High Representative.
	That makes no sense at all. If, instead of Mr. Javier Solana and Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner going round the world on the same plane, one is present but not the other, they will be able to cover only half the agenda. As we all know, if international relations are to be successful, they depend on packages being put together. The present situation is nonsense. We have the opportunity to do something about it—let us make sure that we do so.
	The same is true of the presidency. The idea of a country holding the presidency for six months and then not again for another 15 years makes no sense. It leads to a total lack of continuity. The idea of asking Malta, whose population is slightly less than that of the city of Bristol, to provide the whole bureaucratic structure to manage the business of the Union for six months makes no sense. I do not say a word against the Maltese. I would not think that Lincolnshire was capable of taking over the conduct of the European Union's affairs for six months, and I have the highest admiration for the people of Lincolnshire.
	We need to get away from dogmatism and get back to the good Conservative principle of pragmatism—the good Conservative principle of taking a fair-minded, open-minded look at the national interest and being brave enough to draw the conclusions that emerge from that.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased once again to have an opportunity to speak on European matters. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who gave his game away by talking about Europe as a company, with a managing director running the show. Government is about democracy—choices, competing philosophies and people choosing which philosophy to be governed by. That is what democracy is about.
	I commend the Foreign Secretary on doing the best possible job with an almost impossible brief. She is a very competent Minister whom I have always admired, but on this occasion she has had a difficult job to do. I congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary on his speech, which as usual was witty, intelligent and competent, and I agree with almost everything that he said. The difference between the shadow Foreign Secretary and myself is one of political philosophy. I want the British people to continue to have the right to choose to be governed by a Conservative Government, governed by Conservative principles, or a Government of democratic socialism, which I would support. If we do not watch what Europe is doing, we will not have the choice in future.
	We are at another significant moment in the European Union saga. There is another attempt to bounce Britain and other member states into a legally binding constitutional treaty by another name. We have seen a week or two of spin and counter-spin in our media. There is no doubt in Chancellor Merkel's mind what she wants; she is pretty plain in what she says. She wants to get the treaty through in one form or another, either in pieces or by deception. Our newspapers have been full of leaks, I suspect from different addresses in Downing street, and perhaps the Foreign Office as well. I hope that the Prime Minister will not mind my suggesting that he has hung on as long as possible to get his deal on Europe and to dig a hole for his successor to fall into. I hope that his successor will not be taken in by that and will make his own decisions when he becomes Prime Minister in nine days' time, which I look forward to very much. I hope that he will have a much more sensible, pragmatic and democratic approach to Europe than the present Prime Minister, who has been rather gung-ho about matters European.
	This week we are in danger of a pretty dodgy deal being stitched up, effectively without the consent of this House and certainly without the consent of the British people. I, for one, want a referendum on whatever comes out of the summit, if it is agreed by our leaders. If there is no agreement, that will suit me fine, and it would suit the British people fine. The people of Europe would be quite happy to muddle along with the status quo. The skies will not fall in and life as we know it will not change. We will just carry on. Many things are wrong with the EU. I would like to see many dramatic changes, making it more democratic, and more powers being given back to Parliaments. If the treaty does not go through, it may upset Chancellor Merkel, but it will not upset many other people, certainly not the British people, who would probably have a little drink to celebrate.
	As I say, I am confident that the Foreign Secretary will fight our corner behind the scenes. She portrayeda little less enthusiasm for all things European by mentioning the fact that she voted no in the 1975 referendum. I myself was chair of the Luton "Vote no" campaign at that time, so there is no secret about my views. Unlike others, who may have wobbled a bit, I have not changed. However, I have thought about European matters ever since. I keep talking about Europe, but it is the European Union. Europe is a geographical entity and the EU is a political and economic construct thrust upon part of Europe, because we must not forget that quite a bit of Europe is outside the EU, so I must refer to the European Union, not to Europe.
	To those who say that they are gut Europeans I say, "So am I." I love everything about Europe, except the European Union. I am European in every sense, culturally, politically and historically. I go to Europe for my holidays and I love European culture, particularly European music, and I have even been known to drink a glass or two of European wine, which is splendid stuff. I am absolutely in favour of Europe. I even struggle to speak a few European languages—not very well, but I do try. None the less, I do not believe that the European Union as it stands is good for Europe or its peoples. I believe that we should move towards a much looser association of democratic independent states, working together on matters of mutual benefit.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about what great things Europe could do, but there is no reason why we cannot co-operate to do those things without the structures that have been imposed upon us. We could perfectly well work together in this peaceful world. We have a great deal in common politically; certainly the people do. Broadly speaking there are socialists, social democrats and conservatives in Europe, and some liberals as well. We would get along without such structures and we could do all sorts of good things, perhaps rather better, if we were not corralled into this straitjacket called the EU. It would suit us all if there was no deal
	The "better off out" campaign has been launched recently, but I am not signed up to it. I do not want to be destructive in the sense of walking away and saying, "A plague on all your houses." I want to co-operate with other European nations. But that campaign does have some points. The most recent figures for Britain show that there are tremendous disadvantages in our membership of the EU, which are not balanced by advantages. Our gross contribution to the European budget is £12 billion a year rising to £20 billion by 2013, which is a lot of money. Our current net contribution is about £4.7 billion, which will rise to£7 billion by 2013, largely as a result of the deal, of which I have been so critical, done by the Prime Minister at the end of the British presidency. There are other problems, too. The common agricultural policy costs us an estimated £15 billion a year in food prices. We could save people a lot of money on their weekly shopping simply by not having the CAP, which we should get rid of.
	I am in favour of some regulation, but it has been estimated that European regulation costs as much as2 per cent. of GDP, which is £45 billion a year and rising. That is a vast amount of money. Sensible, democratic socialist regulation would be less onerous, but it would still have an effect on the economy. Economic growth is about 0.5 per cent. less than it would be were we not constrained by the European Union. Over 10 years, that would amount to £65 billion in economic growth, which is a vast sum of money.
	People often talk about how the trade balance is advantageous to us as a trading nation. We have a gigantic trade deficit with the European Union—it is about £2.5 billion a month and possibly £30 billion a year—and it is a structural deficit. One hopes that because we are not members of the euro, we may see some reduction in the value of our currency relative to the euro, which would help our trade balance. A structural trade balance strongly implies that we have a misaligned currency. At least we are not part of the euro, which means that we can do something about it.
	Finally, I support what the Czechs have been saying about a Europe in which more power is devolved back to Parliaments, which I would welcome. I have already mentioned agricultural policy and aid policy, and the point also applies to the common fisheries policy. We have the longest coastline in Europe, and we suffer the greatest disadvantage from the CFP. It is obviously nonsense that we signed up to the CFP in the first place. If fisheries policy were repatriated to member states, it would benefit us and the situation would be much fairer. Other areas should also be returned to national Parliaments, and I would not like to see more economic power given to the European Union.
	We have a lot to offer the peoples of Europe, because we are more pragmatic and realistic about Europe than many other countries, and it is interesting that the peoples of Europe are starting to wake up to that. Until the referendums in France and Holland, and indeed the referendum on the euro in Sweden, many people in Europe were sleepwalking. The European Union was like motherhood and apple pie—something that people went along with—but people do not think that any more.
	People are looking more critically at Europe. Perhaps as a result of some of the debates that we have had here, people in Europe are aware that there is a choice. The French and the Dutch people have started to make that choice, which I want others to have. I want to see a much more democratic Europe to which we can all sign up, with which we are all at ease and on which we can work together democratically. I do not believe that the constant drift towards the formation of a centralised superstate with power in the hands of bureaucratic and political elites is what the people want. It is certainly not what I want. Mr. Barroso has rejected what he calls "à la carte Europe" in favour of a Europe that is centralised and run by bureaucrats. That is completely unacceptable, and we should say so. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will say that.
	We have got a message to get out to citizens in Europe: we want more democracy, and I am sure that they do, too. I look forward to a drift away from a centralised superstate towards a more democratic association of member states in a new European community, not a European Union.

John Randall: This is the first time that I have taken part in one of these debates on European affairs, not because I do not have a great interest in the subject but because there are always many Members who want to speak. We have already heard some very good speeches. I do not necessarily agree with all of them, but they have been well made and from a principled position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) more or less summed up my views. I was going to echo the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)—that Europe is more than the European Union—but my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) stirred up something that I wanted to say when he talked about business, and how a big board could not be run in the way that the presidency is run.
	As the House may know, I am a retailer by trade with a small independent store in Uxbridge. During the past 20 years, we became a member of the Association of Independent Stores—an admirable body that gives independent stores such as ourselves many advantages. For example, we can get better prices as a buying group. However, the association does not tell me everything. It does not tell me what days I can open, what hours I can open, or where I have to place three-piece suites and which ones I should buy. As an association of independent stores it works very well.
	In the past 30 years, the face of Europe has changed dramatically. We have heard about the fall of the Berlin wall. New countries have come into existence, some of which were never countries before, and some that were proud countries that had been subsumed, mostlyby the Soviet bloc. Of course, we all welcome that.The European Union has, in many ways, given those countries something to look forward to being part of.
	One part of our continent remains rather unsettled—the Balkans. I could not let this opportunity to raise that subject pass, especially when I saw on the Front Bench a different Minister from those whohave had to listen to my Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. That is not because I am obsessed with the subject but because I believe that it is a very important area for Europe, and because, as in the case of so many of these difficult areas, we rather want to ignore it and wish that it would go away—but of course it will not.
	We are now at a crucial time with regard to the final status of Kosovo. Unfortunately, its final status in the post-conflict world was never thought out properly. Forces went in, although I have a slightly differentview, in terms of some aspects, as to whether the humanitarian intervention was quite as it was portrayed. Nobody thought about what was going to happen afterwards, and now the pendulum has swung the other way as regards ethnic cleansing. Kosovo has an almost entirely Albanian population; a lot of the Serbs have been driven out. Many are waiting to go back, in refugee camps or in camps for the internally displaced. There are some very sad places in Kosovo where people who were burned out of their homes three or four years ago are living in containers. As far as I can tell, most of Europe is ignoring those people's plight.
	Kosovo is a poor country. It is not only the Kosovan Serbs who are suffering; there are huge problems in that part of the world. However, we have the reached the position when, apparently, final status must be sorted out. I say "apparently" because I do not understand how we can unilaterally impose a solution on any set of people, and I am afraid that that is being done. Although a solution can be imposed for a while, it simply creates a problem—perhaps not for the next few years or even a generation, but for the future—that will never be solved.
	Let us consider what we have done in this country with regard to Northern Ireland, the incredible advances in the peace process and the position that we have reached today. Ten or 20 years ago, it would have been impossible to imagine the personalities whoare in Stormont today sharing power. However, that achievement has taken time and patience. At times, deadlines have been set and passed because the opportunity of achieving peace was too precious to say, "Sorry, that's the end of it." I am therefore greatly concerned about the position in Kosovo.

John Randall: It was far from helpful, but I understand why the President said that at the time. I am not entirely sure that, even in Europe, we understand the complexities of some of those matters. America may have competencies in many areas, but I am not sure that the Balkans is one of them.
	However, we are where we are. I fear that if we are not careful, we will have a genuine problem in the coming years. All I ask from the Government is that when the matter is being discussed they should not try to reach a quick-fix solution, because that will not last.
	When I last visited Kosovo in February with the all-party group, it was apparent that Kosovo has become de facto an independent state. I believe that Serbia recognises that it will never get direct rule from Belgrade over the area, and that is welcome. The sticking block is that we have arbitrarily changed the boundaries of a state. Kosovo is recognised to be part of Serbia, and for us to say that that can be changed will set an awful precedent around the world. Our Government, America and the Contact group, with the exception of Russia, disagree and claim that it will be a one-off. Things do not work like that. I cannot understand how Republika Srpska would not say, "You've allowed Kosovo to become independent. We want to join up with Serbia proper. Why can't we do that?" We have only to look a bit further towards the Caucasus to Abkhazia and Ossetia to find other problem areas. There is no easy answer, but we must not rush into a solution.
	The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee takes a serious interest in the region, but he was slightly in error when he said that the countries of the European Union were at one on the matter. Perhaps that just about applies on the surface, but underneath, there is a great deal of concern about what would happen if boundaries and borders were changed anywhere, but especially in Europe.
	I ask the Government to look seriously into the various possibilities. I wonder whether it would be possible to provide something like a lease, whereby perhaps for the next 99 or 100 years Serbia held a lease on that part of the world, knowing full well that it had no control over it. It is the feeling of belonging to those heartlands that is so important to recognise.

Greg Hands: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key considerations in any settlement should bethe right of the Serbian people to go to Kosovo, particularly in view of the incredible heritage for the Serbian people that can be seen there? The Serbian people want to be able to visit the monasteries and other sights that are so important to their nation, but that should be possible while preserving the self-determination of the Kosovars.

Quentin Davies: The whole House is listening with great attention to my hon. Friend, who knows an awful lot about this subject and speaks with great feeling. Has he considered whether the European Union itself might ultimately be the only solution to the problem? It has already solved so many problemsin areas such as Alsace-Lorraine or Alto Adige-Sudtirol—areas where blood has been shed through the centuries. Once countries come together within the European Union, exactly where the frontier happens to be is no longer such an existential matter and problems can be resolved. Is it not possible to envisage a solution under which Albania, Kosovo and Serbia are one day all in the European Union? Might not that provide the solution that my hon. Friend is looking for?

Stephen Hammond: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who spoke with such passion on a subject that he knows a great deal about, and to contribute to this afternoon's debate.
	It seems to me that on 1 January this year, it was absolutely clear to everyone that the period of reflection after the rejection of the treaty by the Danish and the French was over. The trouble was that it became all too clear to too many of us that for many countries and Governments, including our own, it had been a period not just of reflection but of hibernation. The opportunity for the period of reflection to become a period of renegotiation and reconsideration had been lost. We are under no illusions. Chancellor Merkel has always made it absolutely clear that she wanted to resurrect and breathe new life into the constitution, and she is right to do that because it is her stated aim and it is what the German presidency is going to do.
	The EU has been enlarged. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) said earlier that those on our Front Bench had not mentioned the need for a new direction, but he was wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) had actually asked the Foreign Secretary why she thought we needed a new direction if everything was going so well. We have always been clear about the fact that the enlarged EU needs a new direction. It does not need a more centralised, more controlled bureaucratic body to which we surrender more national powers. My right hon. Friend has made it clear on several occasionsthat his vision is of a looser amalgamation, with a well-regulated single market and an attempt to unbundle and repatriate further powers.
	Many people in the House and beyond will find it ironic that the Prime Minister, in his last act, is seeking to take the EU in a direction that many of us deem inappropriate. Such a move would be particularly unpopular with the British people and unnecessary for the future of Europe. The Foreign Secretary said that some of the member states that had ratified the constitution were experiencing difficulty in going back and accepting a mere amending treaty. That may be so, but it is a matter for them. It is for us to stand up and ensure that our national interests are being protected by the Government.
	For many years, I worked in the City as an investment analyst, and I saw a huge amount of development in the way in which companies funded themselves. We used an analysis that we called the duck analysis: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck. If the amending treaty has the content and the intent of the EU constitutional treaty, it probably is a constitutional treaty, and it probably—no, definitely—will transfer power. Any reasoned analysis will therefore have toask whether the amending treaty is inimical to the constitutional treaty, where the transfers of powerwill take place, and what negotiating stance our Government are taking to protect our national interests.
	It must be clear to everyone that the EU constitutional treaty of 2004 was a step towards greater integration. It had two aspects. The constitutional aspect would have given the EU legal personality,and given EU laws supremacy over national laws. It would also have merged three pillars into one. The institutional aspect would have resulted in an elected full-time President, and a new Foreign Minister to replace the high representative and the external affairs commissioner. Qualified majority voting would have become the general procedure.
	It is still unclear whether the amending treaty would confer legal personality on the EU. We shall have to wait and see, but President Sarkozy has suggested in recent statements that he intends to support the Spanish proposition that it should do so. There is already a proposal for an EU Foreign Minister who would have the power to speak on foreign affairs at the United Nations without the power of national veto, and the power to speak on matters beyond the common foreign policy. All the institutional input that would have resulted from the constitutional treaty is still there in this so-called amending treaty.
	The Foreign Secretary once again defined some of the characteristics of the Government's position, what would be acceptable to the Government and where the red lines would run. She said that Britain would not accept a treaty that allowed the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law in any way. She also saidthat the Government would accept a charter of fundamental rights that brought together existing laws, but she did not say whether the Government would accept a charter that changed EU laws and, through that, UK laws. Will the Minister therefore clarify what "in any way" means to the Government?
	The second red line relates to the acceptance of anything that displaces the role of British foreign policy. The Foreign Secretary referred this afternoon to agreeing a common but not a single foreign policy. Does she therefore agree with the Spanish position that there will be European embassies? Do we really want a tower of Babel? That must be unacceptable. Do we really want an embryonic EU foreign service to jump out of the so-called amending treaty? Again, the red line seems open to interpretation.
	Supposedly, Britain will not agree to anything that moves qualified majority voting into our tax and benefits system, or that gives up control of our legal, judicial and police systems. Again, however, the Foreign Secretary has given no clarity to those red lines. Could not moving criminal justice to a Community competency give the EU competence to make third-country agreements over extradition, which will affect the United Kingdom?

Stephen Hammond: I do agree with that, as it is the logical conclusion of what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, the red lines might be red herrings; they might defend British interests, butthey might also be entirely worthless. Unless the Government, in their winding-up, give some clarity on the red lines, we are entitled to say that the red lines will give us no protection whatever.
	The Foreign Secretary, in her concluding remarks, alluded to that popular television programme "Deal or No Deal", when she said that the Government will not do a deal at any price. That is fair enough, but if what is in the box called "amending treaty" is actually a constitutional treaty—I think that this is proven—whatever the banker offers is not high enough.
	The House should also remember that there is huge cynicism about politics at the moment. All too often, the public believe that we say one thing, mean another and do yet another. What they want is politicians who stand up and say exactly what they mean, and then act accordingly. The Prime Minister said, "Trust the people", on which we wholeheartedly support him. In 1997, he promised a referendum if powers were moved. He also said, and we accepted, that the British people wanted a referendum on the 2004 treaty. Our position is absolutely clear: we want a referendum if the so-called amending treaty transfers powers to the EU. According to any even brief analysis, it is likely that the amending treaty, even after this weekend, will transfer powers. Therefore, let us trust the people.
	Finally, there is the issue of the Government's mandate to act. At the general election, the Prime Minister said that he would serve a full term. Within two years, however, we are to have a new Prime Minister, unelected and without a clear mandate. At a time when the will of the British people is that no further powers should be transferred to Europe, but the so-called amending treaty will do exactly that, there is all the more reason for the Government to trust and respect the British people, and offer them a referendum.

William Cash: I have looked atthe mandate of the intergovernmental conference. I have also listened with great interest to the Foreign Secretary, having cross-examined her recently in the European Scrutiny Committee, where she admitted in so many words that she did not know the position of the United Kingdom Government or, indeed, of the European Union.
	The mandate has been produced by the German Government. I have no doubt that they are pressing ahead with the proposal because they believe it is in their national interest to have a European constitution, or something so close to it as not to make a real difference. I am glad to say that, after a good deal of pressure, my party decided to vote against the constitution in principle—on a famous day last year when the Government went through the Lobbies to support it.
	The European constitution would have completely undermined our parliamentary traditions and democracy. The fact that the new proposals do not contain the repeal provisions that are in the constitutional arrangements—I had to draw that to the Prime Minister's attention a couple of years ago, which I think had some bearing on the fact that we ended up with a referendum—is not specifically a point in their favour. Obviously we would not want the existing arrangements to be set out in the context of repeal, but, as I said to the Foreign Secretary— and it should be carefully noted—under these proposals not only will there be a single legal personality, but
	"The word 'Community' will throughout be replaced by the word 'Union'".
	"Throughout" means throughout all the treaties. The mandate describes the so-called reform treaty as an amendment which will consolidate the treaty onthe European Union and the treaty establishing the European Community. The treaty establishing the European Community is to be called the "treaty onthe functioning of the EU". The mandate would consolidate all the existing treaty arrangements, with amendments, as indeed did the European constitutional treaty. Anyone who examines the transitional provisions will see that they included provisions for repeal and amendment.
	The mandate states not only that
	"The word 'Community' will throughout be replaced by the word 'Union'",
	but
	"it will be stated that the two Treaties constitute the Treaties on which the Union is founded and that the Union replaces and succeeds the Community."
	It then proceeds to the question of primacy.
	We discussed the meaning of primacy a couple of years ago. It is well established, following the case of Costa  v. ENEL, that there is an existing primacy in the European Union. I happen to take grave exception to the way in which it operates under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, which is why I raised with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, the question of the legislative supremacy of this House. It is completely absurd for us to be in the position of legislating simply because a decision has been made at European level, irrespective of the impact on the ordinary everyday lives of the people of this country.

William Cash: Yes, it most emphatically is such a criticism. It was an enormous mistake to have done that in that way. An amendment of mine to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill—new clause 17—was supported by my party in the Commons and the Lords. It proposed in certain circumstances to override the 1972 Act, and, crucially, to require the judiciary to give effect to that latest expressly inconsistent enactment passed by this House on behalf of the electorate who put us in power.
	Nothing is set in concrete forever; even the Minister will accept that things cannot remain static forever. In some circumstances, repatriation has blatantly become necessary. That is the sentiment of the British people, and it is probably also the sentiment of most other European countries. We must achieve the mechanism to deliver that, in the interests of the voters.  [Interruption.] Is the Minister expressing approval? I think he must be, as he cannot disagree with my point.  [Interruption.] I invite him to get up and disagree with me, by all means. We are talking about an important principle: democracy.
	I do not dispute that the primacy of European law has been an established principle. That was set out under the Costa  v. ENEL case of 1964—before we entered the EU—and there have been many other cases since. However, let me make my point on this subject by drawing an analogy with what happened in the 19th century, another time of enormous constitutional change. There was supremacy of Parliament before the passing of the Reform Acts, but it cannot be said that the supremacy of Parliament before the Reform Acts was the same as its supremacy after them. It was a new supremacy of Parliament, endorsed by its democratic accountability which came from everyone having been given the vote. Despite all the obfuscations and opaque and academic arguments about sovereignty that there are, the point I am making is simple. The question is whether the people of this country have the right to make the law through their elected representatives in line with their wishes in general elections.
	The draft mandate states:
	"Concerning the primacy of EU law, the IGC will adopt a Declaration recalling the existing case law of the EU Court of Justice."
	That is an unexceptional statement until that primacy is related to the new functions that are being conferred. Those new functions involve a structural changein the relationships between the United Kingdomand Europe—and between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the electorate of our country. That is a fundamental structural change. When we impose that new primacy, although there is no repeal provision as such, the proposed constitutional arrangements are so close to the existing ones under the treaty that the Minister and the rest of his party voted for, that any distinction that was made would be a distinction without a sufficient difference. That is the key point. If that argument stands up to scrutiny, which I believe it does, then it follows that we must have a referendum.
	Something else follows as well. I am taking the trouble to explain my points on the mandate document because they are important. Between now and next Monday when the Prime Minister returns to the House and tells us what has happened over the weekend, I invite the Government to consider the following idea. Many people agree with me about the new mandate, and if am right it follows that there is a case for expressing a refusal to accept the proposals which is far more potent and useful than the case for offering a referendum. I ask my Front-Bench colleagues to listen to what I am about to say, too.
	Although there is no technical opportunity to exercise a veto because the meeting is not an IGC—which seems to have escaped some people's attention—it could be made clear that we will not accept these proposals on the following grounds: first, they confer further powers; secondly, this represents a fundamental change; and thirdly, it is perfectly clear that the provisions would be unacceptable to the people of this country.

William Cash: I have already made it abundantly clear what my argument on primacy versus new primacy amounts to, and I do not need to repeat it.
	The plain fact is that there is a whole raft of provisions that certainly require a referendum. I would like to see a referendum on all the existing treaties, and it so happens that on the Order Paper there in an early-day motion in my name, supported by well over 50 Conservative MPs, effectively endorsing that proposal. We have reached a watershed, and although we have reached various watersheds before, thisone is fundamental because of the rejection of the constitutional treaty two years ago by France and the Netherlands.

Bernard Jenkin: The Minister for Europe has simply made the same excuse for not having a referendum that the Government used to make in respect of the constitutional treaty, before they conceded that they had to have a referendum on it because it represented a fundamental change.

William Cash: Absolutely; I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The problem with this Government is that they are riddled with inconsistencies.
	We have reached critical mass in terms of the accumulation of powers, which have gradually built up, treaty by treaty. We have been through the black hole of the constitutional treaty itself. Now there is an attempt to retrieve the situation, and despite the fact it makes no substantial difference, to continue to pursue the idea, subject only to the Minister for Europe's saying just a couple of days ago that there might be a referendum. However, we need to make it crystal clear that there should be a referendum. Because of the nature of this treaty—its accumulated text and its cumulative effect on the various functions—there must be a referendum on it, as if it were a referendum on all the existing treaties. I suspect that when the text of the treaty ultimately emerges, that is more or less what we will be dealing with. My early-day motion could turn out to be the basis on which we have to proceed—that there will be a referendum on all the existing treaties.
	Although the treaty under discussion is called an amending treaty, it will consolidate all the others. It tries to pretend that it is something else but fails to make a sufficiently different distinction, and, finally, presents the British people with a simple question, which the new Prime Minister—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—is going to have to run with. We have been watching him appoint people such as Jon Cunliffe—people who devised the five economic tests; the Foreign Office is being denuded of its influence; and the influence of people who clearly have a very Eurosceptic view is being carried into No. 10. All that gives me some hope that we will possibly end up with a new dispensation under the new Prime Minister.
	Finally, it has been said that we will have a charter of fundamental rights that is different from the previous one, but which will nevertheless have legal value; however, if possible, it will be kept out of the clutches of the European Court of Justice. I have never heard so much tosh. As I said in  The Times the other day, this is absolute rubbish. Well-established case law showsthat the charter, however it is referred to in these arrangements, will be part and parcel of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. Much more needs to be said about this issue, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will continue this debate. However, I say with 100 per cent. certainty that we need a referendum. These proposals should be vetoed anyway, and we should jolly well have—

Richard Shepherd: I enjoyed the exchange between the Minister for Europe and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), if only because the Minister has woken up. There is a placidity to these debates normally. I shall not follow that exchange, other than to note that all European treaties are of a constitutional nature. We need not fool around: the constitution was the last endeavour, and it is not called that any more, but from 1972 onwards, we have had a framework document—the originating treaty—that has governed the relationship of this House, this people and this nation to developing institutions in Europe.
	Most of us in Britain—simple souls such as myself—did not understand the seriousness or greatness of the design. Why should we? I was outside the House in 1972. I believed in free trade areas and the decision was presented to the public as a free trade deal, so that was simple. But when I became a Member of Parliament, I began to read the documents and see what they actually entailed. The treaty is a clever, slowly evolving—not so slowly, because it is now rapidly accelerating—attempt to change the very nature of the Government of the UK. Other nations must speak for themselves.
	The Foreign Secretary graced us with the inadequacy of her knowledge about the process by which we will arrive at our position over the next couple of days, and she bewildered us in that she has to maintain the position that, although we will have—or may have—a treaty, it will, if it does not meet the red lines that have been constructed by the Government but necessitates some change, be somehow not constitutional. That is what we are arguing about. We went from 1972 to the Single European Act, which Mrs. Thatcher ultimately said she would not have signed if she had known what would happen. She repudiated the decision in a sense, and to begin with I did not understand the difference between a single and a common market. America is a common market. The European government, in its approach to the market, is a single market. Which do I prefer? I prefer the common market, in which each of us competes, strives and controls, within the state system, what we judge to be best. That is not the ambition of that organisation.
	By 1992, we had an opt-out. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister-to-be put conditions on it, but it contained a single currency. What does the treaty say about a single currency? It says that it shall be irrevocable and irreversible. Those are not words to be taken lightly. Having been told about the mutability of human life, we begin to appreciate that the treaty is a solid construction, with ambitions to be a grand and great constitution and to make the UK clearly, through usage and the passage of time, a subservient or subsidiary constituent of the union of Europe.
	The European Economic Community became the European Community in 1992 in the treaty of union, in which the word "economic" was a limitation on the powers of the European Court. The burden of my argument is that whatever comes before us will be the first snapshot and opportunity—which I would takeat every point of change—for people who were not born in 1972, or who did not understand what was happening, to have a vote on whether these arrangements should be allowed to take away a constitutional trust.
	This country formed its own arrangements. We are in conflict about legal systems—about the civil versus the common-law tradition. There are many differences, but this Chamber, which Churchill called this "little room", reflects something deep—the trust of those who send us here.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemanfor giving way. We do not always agree in thesedebates but I have always admired his commitment to parliamentary democracy and sovereignty. We have only ever had one national referendum in this country. How does he equate his commitment to parliamentary sovereignty with his apparent support for referendums?

Richard Shepherd: Very easily. I believe in the Locke premise, which is that we cannot give things away without reference to the people. Churchill said that the people are sovereign, and I believe that we are merely their representatives. When this or any Government attempt to sell off or assign to others responsibility for judgments on great matters of public policy, that is a matter beyond our competence. It is a matter for the competence of the people as a whole, after an informed debate leading to a referendum. That is what I am arguing for.
	I understand that the Minister for Europe may not know his Locke, but the thinking about these matters is very old. I can reconcile my approach, because the sovereignty of Parliament and democratic Government that we now espouse and promote—I am here by virtue of it—began with the autocratic dictatorship of monarchy and progressed through oligarchy. Our struggle has always been to hold the Crown in check, and that is what we do in this Chamber. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's majority means that the Crown is now with him in Downing street, but that is no excuse for us if we forget what our business is and where the trust of those whom we should serve lies. That is why the EU cannot satisfy the democratic question.
	I had not intended to indulge in that flourish. I was going to talk about Roman Herzog, the German Chancellor between 1994—the time of Maastricht—and 1999. After his time in office, he researched the extent of his country's Government, looking at some interesting figures for the total number of so-called legislative instruments that had been passed. He found that most of the laws in force in Germany were no longer passed in the German Parliament, but inthe EU.
	It is hard for us to get to grips with that. When the Minister for Europe was Leader of the House, and therefore Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, we wanted to find out the extent of European legislation. Our inquiry was never concluded, but the Cabinet Office suggested that 40 per cent. of legislation came from Europe. When I asked about that figure, it disappeared from the Cabinet Office website, but figures from the German Ministry of Justice comparing the number of legislative processes in that country between 1998 and 2004 with the amount of EU legislation in the same period found that 84 per cent. of all laws were passed in Brussels, and only 16 per cent. in Berlin.
	What was former President Herzog's conclusion? In translation, he said:
	"We have to ask whether the Federal Republic of Germany can still be unequivocally described as a parliamentary democracy."
	That is at the heart of why some of us are taking part in this debate. Can we be described unequivocally as a parliamentary democracy? I do not doubt that the balance of the legislative process in this country would reflect that of Germany, or of Lithuania.
	I mention Lithuania, because it ratified the original constitutional treaty before it had been published in the European news circuit. Come on the new political classes that govern with their strange elections. What does public opinion matter? The document was a joyous expression; it had 400 inaccuracies after translation. We may be forming a union in which people expound their views by hallelujah choruses, but this Chamber to the last will go line by line through the detail of the constitutional arrangements that affect it.
	The Minister is quieter now. Perhaps I have exhausted him, but the Foreign Office must pull itself together—or rather the Foreign Secretary must do so. We are in an absurd position. Two days before an important discussion about how the European Union will see its way through the misconceived judgments of the French and Dutch electorates, we are listening to a Prime Minister who is going out of the door having endorsed the constitution. That is the difficulty; he actually endorsed it.
	The Prime Minister promised us a referendum should the constitution come about, although all his fingers and toes were crossed—we understand that—but the man who could endorse that and the Cabinet that could agree leave us doubtful as to their intent. I no longer trust the processes whereby Government proceed and accede to the European Union. It is disgraceful that we do not engage—that there is noway forward, no repatriation of powers and no understanding of what this country needs. That is why we must have a referendum.

Willie Rennie: I was not a Member in the 1990s but I watched the great European debates about Maastricht, so it is a great honour to follow speakers such as the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It is easy to see why this place must have been electrifying during those debates in the '90s— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members shake their heads—perhaps they had a different experience.
	I apologise to the House for arriving late. Unfortunately, I was in Uxbridge for five hours being fitted for a gas mask for a forthcoming trip with the Select Committee on Defence. It was a frustrating experience. I thought that the congestion across the Forth bridge was bad until my experience of Uxbridge congestion, which was much worse.
	This morning, I was reading about possible coalition deals with Labour, so when I saw the empty Labour Benches this afternoon I wondered whether crossing the Floor would increase my chances of being called to speak. However, I reassure Labour Members that we have no intention of crossing the Floor today.
	I entered the House 15 months ago and this is my first European debate. I took part in a debate onthe EU-China relationship in a European Standing Committee scrutiny session, which was attended by the Minister for Trade—I am sorry that he is not on the Treasury Bench at present. During that debate, we exposed a number of issues relating to China—on Africa, human rights, trade and the environment. They offered examples why Europe is a good thing—why Europe can contribute to our nation and the rest of the world. If we were acting alone, we would not have the same influence on China as the EU has, which is why it is important that we have confidence in the EU, even with all its faults, and work with it to achieve a better world.
	I do not go along with the approach of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), which is to muddle along in Europe. That gets us no further forward. Like many Conservative Members, we recognise that there are many faults in the EU, but muddling along is not the way to sort out the difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Member forRoss, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) made an inspirational and honourable speech, which showed why we should be enthusiastic for Europe.
	I will give the House two quick reasons why we need to reform. They are quite simple reasons and I am sure the public would understand them. Having 27 members of the Commission is completely unacceptable. It is not a way to run any kind of business or democracy.That is why we need to rationalise. To have any hopeof building relationships with countries outside and within Europe, we need more than a six-month presidency of the European Union.

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman is repeating the mantra that the EU cannot cope with 27 Commissioners. Can he give us an example from the last three yearsof when the EU has been stymied by having 25 or27 Commissioners and has been unable to put forward its business?

Willie Rennie: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out many faults with the European Union in the past. I am sure that having 27 members of the Commission is one of the reasons why we are not able to advance. He is much more knowledgeable than me and can come up with many more examples than I can.
	During the '90s, I was often in eastern Europe, where I took part in training for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I often came across European countries that were extremely enthusiastic about joining not just NATO, but the European Union. They saw membership as providing access to the modern world and as a way of improving their economies and internal processes. I wish we could inspire that enthusiasm for Europe, which has existed in the past, in this country.
	There is enthusiasm for Europe in my local area. Rosyth ferry port provides access to the ferry to Zeebrugge. That is extremely popular with traders, as well as visitors to the European continent. West Fife Enterprise gives access to European grants to try to provide new opportunities for young people in training and enterprise. We even have motorbike shops that trade in euros. For that to happen is a sign of the enthusiasm for Europe in Fife.
	I want to make two quick points before I move on the main thrust of my speech. Yesterday we found out that there has been movement on the official legal recognition of whisky. [Hon. Members:"Hear, hear!"] I hear cheers from Members, and quite right too. It is a great drink. I am sure that whisky producers in Scotland will welcome the legal recognition and that there will be the required economic boost. A slightly more negative point relates to the food supplement regulations that are being introduced. The efforts by the European Union to control the maximum limits on food supplements, vitamins and mineral are a negative step. I hope that the Minister will consider those proposals; I am sure that the Government are doing so already.
	I wish to discuss Turkey, whose accession to the European Union has been 40 years in the waiting. In Europe, we have secured more than 40 years of peace and prosperity among member states, but we have often looked towards our boundaries to try to expand that peace. Turkey is one of the immediate neighbours that we should look to engage with further and ultimately welcome into a further expanded European Union. The European Economic Community promised Turkey membership, albeit conditionally, more than40 years ago, and we have often repeated the commitment since. Turkey has been seeking integration into Europe ever since, economically and, as far as possible, politically. It has launched major internal changes to facilitate membership. Not admitting Turkey once it meets the EU standards would be extremely damaging.
	We will all be aware of the recent political troubles in Turkey involving the ruling AK party and the debate about the election of the President. Of course, Turkish membership of the European Union is not just around the corner because stringent criteria must be met for it to be able join—and rightly so. The oppression of the Kurds in eastern Turkey cannot simply be forgotten, for example. However, the fact that the death penalty has been abolished is a hugely encouraging sign of progress. The issues that stand in the way of membership are not insubstantial, however, and will take time to resolve.
	The current Turkish Government have presided over a number of consecutive years of substantial economic growth. Evidently, it would be folly to rule outthe membership of such a diverse and strategically important country as Turkey. Members of the European Union should not create artificial barriers or unexpected hurdles. If Turkey fulfils its criteria, it is entitled to accession, but we should make it clear that Turkey cannot qualify on economic grounds alone and that pluralism, the rule of law and freedom of speech must be realities, not merely aspirations.
	Britain has been robust in its support for the enlargement of the EU. In 2004, we supported the accession of 10 new countries to the EU, while in 2007, we have supported two more member states. We should maintain that position because a diverse and large Europe will benefit us all.
	The Defence Committee, of which I am a member, has been scrutinising the European security and defence policy. We examined the importance of the policy during trips to Washington, Canada and European countries. As we try to meet the challenges of terrorism and rogue states, we need to ensure that we work together for the benefit of us all and the freedoms and rights that we protect in this country. However, the concept of simply relying on NATO is ill conceived.
	The scaremongering of Eurosceptics, with their usual anti-European stance, is predictable on this front, as it is on many fronts. They complain when other countries try to introduce more qualified majority voting in the EU, presumably because they do not wish to be railroaded by those countries, but when it comes to NATO, they attempt to railroad other countries into participating in conflicts for which there is little domestic support. I encourage members of NATO and the EU to do their fair share in conflicts such as that in Afghanistan. Such countries have often not stepped up to the plate or reduced the number of caveats to their participation. However, it is extremely unreasonable simply to require them to participate in conflicts when they have difficulties at home. The approaches on NATO and the EU seem to be converse.

Greg Hands: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), I have not previously spoken in a European Affairs debate. I understand that such debates take place twice a year. I was warned that it would be dangerous to speak in the debate, as I would become for ever part of a mythical group of people called "the usual suspects". I was intrigued by that. I was also intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) earlier describing an additional two species called the Euro-creeps and the Euro-lags.
	I am struck by the fact that on the Government Benches there are virtually no suspects present. Despite the fact that this is a fundamental debate aboutthe future of this country, the future constitutional arrangements of the European Union and its interaction with the United Kingdom, there are no Labour Members in the Chamber other than two Back Benchers, a Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Whip, as well as the Minister for Europe. It is a pretty poor show.
	As a new speaker in the debate, I ought to outline some of my background. I am genuinely pulled two ways on Europe—between my heart and my head, or between my personal life and my political life. At various times for my degree I studied the German, Czech and Turkish languages. I lived and worked in Germany for over two years. I had been to 25 of the27 EU countries, excepting only Cyprus and Malta, before I was aged 30, both on personal and on business travel. My wife is half German and half Russian. The language of choice for us at home is German. My daughter is being brought up bilingually, as my other children will be, and she holds two EU passports.
	My constituency has the second largest number of EU residents anywhere in the country after Kensington and Chelsea. From a personal point of view, I should be a total enthusiast for the European Union and everything that it stands for. However, that is not the case. Why am I opposed to the current direction ofthe EU? Probably because I believe that it needs fundamental change. I strongly believe that we must be in Europe and make the case for a Europe that is in our mould. We have many declared and potential allies since expansion, to whom we are not talking enough. That is especially the case with the present Government. We want a grouping of sovereign nation states able to trade freely with one another, co-operating on areas of common political interest. Change is desperately needed. According to the European Commission's own figures, by 2050 Europe's share of world output will fall to only 10 per cent. The US will be on 26 per cent. at that time. That means that in just 40 years the average American will be twice as well off as the average European.
	In February, I attended a speech on Europeby my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) at the Movement for European Reform. The speech had a great deal to commend it. My right hon. Friend spoke about how the EU, rather than focusing on itself, gaining more powers and expanding its remit, should focus on becoming what he called the 3G Europe, concentrating on global poverty, globalisation and global warming. I would add a fourth G—global terrorism. We should add to that list sovereignty and the paramountcy of Parliament in making UK law.
	Much has been said today on the EU constitution, and there are real fears that the same treaty has come to us dusted off that was previously presented in 2004. Last month, I was in the audience for a speech in Potsdam by Angela Merkel's right-hand man, Thomas de Maizière, the chief of the Chancellor's office and the Federal Minister of Special Affairs. De Maizière was applauding the content of the EU constitution while criticising moves made more than two years ago to call it a constitution. His words were: "You don't name the baby until after it's born." The implication was clear: the baby was a great thing but should not have been called a constitution until after it had been ratified.

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was at the conference, sitting practically next to him, and I want to probe him on other comments made by Thomas de Maizière. Please correct me if I am wrong, but when asked, I think by the editor of the  Financial Times, when it would be appropriate for Angela Merkel to hold discussionswith the Leader of the Opposition on the state of Euroscepticism within the British press, Thomas de Maizière very clearly replied, "Never, for as long as the Conservative party plans to leave the European People's party." Is not that a damning indictment on the hon. Gentleman's party's policy?

Greg Hands: I am delighted to be given the additional minute and to talk about the role of the Members of the European Parliament. It is of interest to methat, on 7 June, Labour Members of the European Parliament voted for the motion, which stated:
	"To achieve a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the EU that is based on the content of the constitutional treaty, possibly under a different presentation."
	That is exactly the same thesis as was put forward by Mr. de Maizière in his comment that the baby should not be named until it is born.

Greg Hands: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon spoke about the Government being in a period of hibernation on the constitution having done very little during the past two years.

Greg Hands: Yes. The answer is that the hon. Lady should be careful about throwing stones in glasshouses. If she looked at what the Socialist group of MEPs was presenting in terms of a deeply federal Europe, she would be genuinely alarmed. If I were her, I would more closely examine her own side first.
	I have been looking at the timetable for the past six weeks in the lead up to this crucial summit. I have been going through all the press releases put out by the German federal Government, the Bundesregierung, and comparing the movements of Angela Merkel and her wheeling and dealing to try to secure a deal on the European constitution with the complete lack of such activity by our own leaders.
	I mentioned earlier that the German Chancellor had had one to one meetings with the leaders of Poland, France, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania and so on. It is fascinating to compare what she was doing with what the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Deputy Prime Minister were up to at the same time. For example, when Angela Merkel was meeting the President of Poland, the Prime Minister's office was trailing that, as part of his legacy tour, he would loveto go back on "Blue Peter". When the German Chancellor was meeting the new French President, our Prime Minister was on a plane to Washington. Obviously, going to Washington would usually be important, but as part of a legacy tour, when the constitution is up for negotiation, where was he? When the German Chancellor met the Danish leader, Mr. Rasmussen, on 22 May, our Prime Minister was doing an interview with Brian Williams of NBC, talking about how popular he is in the United States. On it goes. When the German Chancellor was meeting the leaders of Sweden, Ireland and Belgium, our Prime Minister was in Sierra Leone.
	I also had a quick look to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been doing. I went to his website, "Gordon Brown for Britain", which includes a section called "Follow Gordon" that allows people to follow his progress around the UK. The site helpfully includes a huge map of Europe that extends to Slovenia, Sweden and Italy. However, the map of Europe is absolutely blank, because he has not made a single visit to Europe or met a single European leader in six weeks, other than his conversation with Mr. Sarkozy on the telephone, because he has been too busy shadow boxing at the Labour party hustings. At a time when we have no Government to represent us and fight our corner in Europe, our right to govern ourselves is being given away.
	The Government have been incredibly evasive.Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked the Foreign Secretary to come clean on what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on the constitution. Her reply was brief, even by new Labour standards:
	"All these issues are discussed among all members of the Government at all times."—[ Official Report, 5 June 2007;Vol. 461, c. 119.]
	That was an incredibly helpful and informative answer.
	Germany has been saying that the EU is unworkable without a new treaty and the constitution. Again, I shall refer to the federal Government press release published on 14 June:
	"A new treaty is to prevent gridlock within the EU, even with 27 or more member states."
	There is significant evidence that there is no gridlock in the EU. I happen to sit on the European Scrutiny Committee, and every week we consider an enormous pile of documents, including the latest directives, Green Papers and White Papers from the Commission. I shall pick out three examples from recent weeks, because all the evidence indicates that there is no gridlock inthe EU.
	First, there are the foreign prisoner repatriation regulations. I got in there on the right of UK victims of crime to be told whether a foreign prisoner whohas been repatriated will be released, which is a fundamental part of UK law on victims of crime. Unfortunately, that particular EU document does not contain any regulations about notifying victims of crime in the event of such a prisoner being released from a foreign jail.
	Secondly, there is funding for integration and community cohesion. It stands to reason that the integration of minorities into societies and countries is, almost by definition, a job for nation states and national Governments. It is difficult to conceive how a supranational body can be in charge of integration, but there is a new EU integration fund. I agree with exchanging best practice, but for the EU to have competence on the integration of minorities is fundamentally wrong and potentially disastrous.
	Thirdly, we have already heard about the European security and defence policy. An amazing document on the progress made on the ESDP during the German presidency came before the European Scrutiny Committee last week. It mentions civilian capabilities, military capabilities, the European capability action plan, various battle groups and operational activities. A group of countries is effectively behaving like a state through the ESDP.
	I want briefly to discuss one subject other than the future of the EU, namely, our relations with Russia, which, surprisingly, have not been raised in this debate. Relations are certainly worsening, which is a problem. Last week, I was interviewed by a Russian business magazine,  Profil, and the interviewer could not work out why people in the UK are upset about the Alexander Litvinenko affair. I had to explain that the man concerned was a UK citizen—whether or not one agrees with aspects of our asylum and immigration system, he was, nevertheless, a UK citizen, and he should have been protected by the UK Government. In my view, he was badly let down. A British citizen was assassinated in cold blood in a restaurant, hotel or bar somewhere in London by the use of a radioactive isotope, which is deadly serious in every sense.
	In terms of our relations with Russia, the key area to consider is how we are engaging, or not engaging, with the countries of the former Soviet Union. Almost all the disputes that are happening between the west and Russia have at their heart countries from the former Soviet Union—they concern the war memorial in Estonia, the direction of political change in Ukraine, energy through Ukraine and Belarus, Georgia's bid to join NATO, oil deliveries to Lithuania, gas pipelines, and so on. Britain and the EU need to engage alot more.
	Finally, I want to throw out an idea that brings the two things together: whether it is possible for Russia to join the EU. I think that that is fundamentally possible. Are we going to say that Russia is the only country in Europe—the only Orthodox country; the only Slav country with a Slavonic tongue—that cannot join the EU? We should seriously consider that, because it would do the EU an enormous amount of good, as would the accession of Turkey when the conditions are right. Obviously, an awful lot has to change.

John Bercow: It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), who is, as we have all seen and heard, as educated, cerebral and dextrous a contributor to our debate as we could hope for on this important occasion.
	I confess that my starting point is somewhat different. For 34 years, under successive Governments of both colours, Britain has been a member first, ofthe European Community, and subsequently, of the European Union. That is because a judgment was made that it was in our interests to be so. My view is that it remains in our interests for two principal and highly compelling reasons, the first economic andthe second political. The economic argument has not fundamentally changed—if anything, it has strengthened. The arguments made in support of initial entry—the opportunity of massively expanded trade, the creation of a vast new raft of jobs, the deregulation of markets and increased consumer choice—seem to me, if anything, more potent now than they were back in 1972. That is because, first, a great deal has been achieved since then in terms of liberalisation, consumer choice and competitive capitalism, and secondly, there was then a market of 250 million or 350 million people, but there is now a market of well-nigh 500 million people.
	Secondly, there was and is a political reason for our membership. We were conscious, as we are now, of a huge number of challenges which, with good willand flexibility among member states, can be more effectively tackled together than if we insist on choosing to consider matters only for our individual constituent nations. In the process of trying to overcome some of the transnational problems that beset us, we seek also to promulgate and disseminate essentially democratic values that we nurture and cherish in this country, and which we recognise as underpinning the democracies of other member states of the European Union. The reality is that if one is in government, whatever the anxieties, frustrations and disappointments, one probably acknowledges that when it comes down to it and one has to make a choice, it is more sensible to be part of the European Union than not to be part of it or so to detach oneself from the mainstream as effectively to neuter one's influence. We can all make Eurosceptic speeches—I have done so myself and can do it virtually in my sleep—but I would politely suggest that there is a difference between what one does when one is charged with the responsibilities of government and what one does, or says, when one languishes in the impotence of opposition. My personal view is that we should put the issue of membership to bed.
	Let me underline the argument for the avoidanceof doubt. Of no fewer than six Prime Ministers—Ted Heath, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and the present Prime Minister—none has seriously entertained for one moment the notion of exit or departure from the European Union. That is the starting point. We need to be in there, punching our weight and making a contribution. We need to try to be constructive at all times on every issue.

John Bercow: That is a fascinating intervention, to which I would happily respond in appropriate detail and with all my arguments marshalled on another occasion. If the hon. Lady is interested in joining me for a cup of tea, for which I am happy to pay, I am willing to debate the matter with her at another time. However, I shall not be diverted, even by the quick-wittedness of her interventions, from the central thrust of the argument on which I should like to focus.
	The logical corollary of accepting the principle and practice of continued membership is recognition of the need to co-operate. There must be a basic pre-disposition for members of the European Union to try to co-operate. Moreover, co-operation in the European Union is not a one-off instance or an isolated act but a continuous and recurrent process, which is implicit in our commitment to membership. It is striking and interesting that several hon. Members from different parties have acknowledged the merit of co-operation but paid lip service to or genuflected at it. They have not gone on logically to develop the argument and to explain in what respects, for what reasons and in what instances co-operating is worth while.
	Let me therefore give some examples of working together on a co-operative basis, which is indispensable for the future interests of the United Kingdom, irrespective of the outcome of the forthcoming Council meeting and any subsequent intergovernmental conference. First, let us consider defence co-operation. European Union countries spend approximately£250 billion a year on defence procurement. I should have thought that it logically followed from that state of affairs that it is worth trying to co-operate to achieve better value for money and interoperability of personnel and kit, and to safeguard and promote this country's defence industrial base. That argument is almost unanswerable. Perhaps that can be done under existing arrangements and does not require an extension of legislative power, but one does not need to take an absolutist stance. The issue is how to advance and bolster the UK's interests.
	Let us consider co-operation on energy policy. It is manifestly clear that it is to our advantage for energy policy purposes and in the attempt to combat climate change to try to pool our resources and hunt as a pack. We all know that we need significantly to free up the energy market and that there is a commitment to try to ensure 20 per cent. renewables use in future. That requires collective action. We also know that there are huge gains to be made in energy efficiency. Several hon. Members have alluded to the reality that China is a growing power, that there are concerns about Iran,that India is an increasingly significant force in the world and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham pertinently reminded us, there is Russia.
	For security of supply, seeking to marshal our resources and maximising our value for money, it makes a great deal of sense to try significantly to extend defence co-operation in the European Union.

John Bercow: That may well be so—for the time being.
	The point that I would like gently to underline to all colleagues is that one does not need to die in the ditch on an abstract principle, which is in a sense a violation of the Conservative tradition, unless one needs todo so.

John Bercow: I understand the point, I recognise the concern and there is an extent to which I share it. I politely suggest to my hon. Friend, however, that that concern does not invalidate the merit of or need for co-operation. It underscores the importance of having greater transparency, which is partly a matter of scrutiny by this House. We need dramatically to improve our procedures in that regard and perhaps those of the EU as well.
	I would like to warm to my theme of co-operation, which I think is true in respect of a number of aspects of the challenge to tackle crime. Cross-border crime, for example, is estimated to cost the EU something in the order of £20 billion a year—a huge sum of money. If we ask people, "Do you want the European Union to control criminal justice policy?" they will say no to that, but if we break down the issue into a series of bite-sized chunks, people are much more amenable to the argument. If we ask about the exchange of data, the contribution of Europol or the role of Eurojust, I believe that there is growing recognition that it is simply not sensible to die in a ditch and insist on the preservation of complete independence where that independence tends to entail an element of impotence— [Interruption.] Others have had their opportunity to contribute and I am going to develop my argument.
	I happen to believe that asylum policy is also an area on which we should co-operate. It was referred to en passant by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who spoke from the Front Bench about the pursuit of a common European asylum policy as though that were somehow a bad thing. Actually, as I have been arguing for the last two years in pamphlets and elsewhere, it would be a good thing. Why? Asylum is a phenomenon that confronts all EU member states and a great many other countries to boot. If we want seriously and effectively to tackle the growing phenomenon of asylum shopping, to share the responsibility for people seeking sanctuary, and to sign up to and enforce the principle of non-refoulement, we need some sort of collective agreement.
	Let me simply say that I do not know whether there will be a deal; I do not know whether it will be a deal worth having; and I do not know whether the House will judge it to be a worthwhile deal. What I do know is that the issues will not go away. We really have to take a hard-headed, pragmatic and self-interested view of how we can advance the cause of United Kingdom plc.
	I strongly agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) had to say. The Commission is too large and it should be reduced. I happen to think that merging two roles—of the High Representative andthe External Affairs Commissioner—that currently operate entirely separately would, as my hon. Friend suggested, make a great deal of sense. Like my hon. Friend, I am a member of the International Development Committee and I believe that it is manifest and arrant nonsense for the European Union to be represented by two separate individuals giving conflicting impressions. I also think that the rotating presidency as it operates at the moment is corrosive of the interests of the EU and, yes, we can look for a simpler, better and more efficient deal in terms of qualified majority voting.
	There is a slightly neurotic strand to some of the critics' arguments. On the one hand, people are hugely critical of the European Union and flay it at every turn, but on the other, when suggestions for reform, improvement, transparency and efficiency are made, they then seem somehow to retreat into the laager that suggests that any change must necessarily be for the worst. That seems to be a mistake.
	Let us return to the best tradition of British foreign policy making, which entails a degree of pragmatism, of jealous regard for the national interest, and of recognition of the need for flexibility. The British national interest should come first, second and third in our deliberations over the next few weeks, and in the months and years ahead.

Daniel Kawczynski: I do not want to get into a competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), who made a very good speech—but I feel that I have an even stronger claim to being socially and continentally minded. He informed the House about the languages that he spoke; I speak five European languages fluently, I have lived in Sweden, Franceand Poland for a total of nine years, and I have aPolish grandfather, now deceased, and a totally unpronounceable foreign surname. Despite that continental pedigree, however, I feel increasingly alienated by further EU integration.
	Rightly, a great deal has been said in the debate about the constitution, and it is vital that we should now have a referendum. I am the chairman of the national campaign for a referendum, which has cross-party support. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) is here, because he is a key part of that organisation. In  The Times newspaper today, there is a full-page article from an organisation called Speak Out asking members of the public to ask their Member of Parliament to lobby on the need for a referendum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will have a new kind of Government and that he will be a Prime Minister who listens to the people. It seems, however, that he will listen to the people, but not on the issue of a referendum on the European Union.

Daniel Kawczynski: I concur with that 100 per cent.
	So much has changed since 1972 when we entered the then EEC. As I mentioned to the Foreign Secretary, there are millions of people like me who, because of when they were born, have not been consulted on the process of further European integration. I was three years of age when the referendum took place, so I did not have the opportunity to cast my vote.
	Everyone talks about the importance of the European project gathering pace and moving forward, but no one mentions the potentially huge backlash that we will face in 20 or 30 years' time if we continue to ignore people and to refuse to allow them to have referendums, and if we suddenly find ourselves in a European state. People will start to rebel against that, and it might be excessive to say so, but there could be serious social tensions as a result.
	Shropshire is having a huge public consultation on proposals for a unitary authority at the moment. People are being consulted through referendums onan issue as parochial as the way in which our local councils are run. The Government also gave a referendum to the people of the north-east on the regional assembly, yet they are not prepared to give the British people a referendum on the vital issue ofthe new constitution. The Foreign Secretary likes to call it an amending treaty, but it is nevertheless a constitution that will impinge on our sovereignty.
	The problem with the European Union is its size. It has 27 countries with huge differences in culture and focus. The constitution is trying to nibble its way towards the one-size-fits-all concept; it wants all of us to be in a one-size-fits-all straitjacket. When I was in business, as many Conservative Members have been, I worked for a telecommunications company for many years, and my job was to try to create a pan-European strategy so that we could better service our international customers. That was extremely difficult to manage, because when I tried to get those in other European countries to comply with a common pan-European strategy, they were not interested. The French wanted to do their own thing, as did the Swedes and the Germans. It is difficult to force such proposals through.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), in a typically excellent speech, mentioned the fact that Lithuania passed the constitution before it had even been published. Today, in anticipation of this debate, I met the Estonian ambassador and three Estonian MPs. I tried as hard as possible to convince them, on the House of Commons Terrace, to be more Eurosceptic, and to be against the constitution. I failed miserably. The Estonians are very keen on the constitution, and 85 per cent. of Estonian citizens want a constitution.
	I spoke with Marko Mihkelson, the chairman of the EU affairs committee in the Estonian Parliament, who made some relevant comments. He said that Estonia, as a relatively small country, had been a member for only three years, had had serious tensions on its border with Russia, was concerned about gas supplies, and did not want to rock the boat. That is fine—I understand and respect that position. But it is not the position in which our country—a hugely important military and economic power—finds itself. We should be able to challenge the concept of a constitution and have more sovereignty devolved down to us.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a series of heartfelt criticisms of the European Union, and I respect and understand that, clearly. But will he tellthe House why the membership of the Union, notwithstanding all its weaknesses, has increased in recent years to 27?

Daniel Kawczynski: As always, my hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. The reason is that for many countries, joining the EU is the thing to do. Were I a Maltese or Lithuanian citizen, I would want the umbrella, or comfort blanket, of the European Union. I see that there are Whips in the Chamber, so let me say that I do not want this country to leave the European Union—perish the thought. However, I do not want our sovereignty to be gradually eked away, either. That is a fundamental difference.
	I said to the Estonians that a time would come when the European Union would ultimately focus on other issues. I, the hon. Member for Luton, North and others from all political parties across Europe will want to bring the European Union back to what it was originally designed as—a trading bloc. I told the Estonians to look at all the important blocs aroundthe world—we need to operate in blocs, because of the World Trade Organisation and other issues—in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. All those vitally important blocs in this globally competitive world focus on international trade, and on trading and working together to maximise their input in the world. We do not find Paraguay and Argentina, or Vietnam and Laos, talking about federalist matters. They are simply not interested. They want to focus on trade.
	I am conscious of time, so I shall get on to my main point. Sovereignty in terms of the constitution is important, but I want to talk about another aspect, which has not been picked up on—our ability to protect our borders. There has been a huge flow of African migrants to Europe over the last few years. Many boats have arrived in the Canary islands from Mauretania. That is a threat to our sovereignty because we are not able to police our common European Union frontiers, but it is also a human tragedy because of what has happened to those poor illegal immigrants.
	I attempted to form an all-party parliamentary group on Mauretania so that we could interact more with that country over its tremendous problems in trying to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Now that Mauretania has democracy for the first time, I hope that the Minister and the Government will start to work with that country to ensure that it is helped not just to police the flow of illegal immigrants to Europe, but to gain jobs and prosperity so that people do not feel the need to migrate.

Daniel Kawczynski: Replying to that question would move me away from my argument about illegal immigration, so I will leave it for another time.
	I know the Minister will support me when I speak of the terrible tragedy and fiasco of African migrants stranded on a tuna-netting platform in the Mediterranean. There was a dispute between Italy, Libya and Malta over who should save those people standing on a fishing platform in the middle of the sea. It was an appalling situation. We should be focusing and working together on issues like that, not on intricate specific constitutional matters that detract from the matters on which our constituents want us to focus.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made some heartfelt statements about Kosovo. I share his interest in that part of the world, and I believe that the issue needs further debate.
	There are countries in the European Union, notably Romania, Greece and Russia, that are also concerned about full independence for Kosovo. I was very upset and annoyed when the American President wentto Albania and said that Kosovo should gain independence straight away. It is not the businessof the President of America to dictate the intricate independent machinations of countries in Europe. Neither I nor anyone else in the Chamber would dream of telling the Americans how to run their affairs in their own back yard, and we do not expect the President or his Administration to tell us what should be happening in the European Union.
	The best speech today was without doubt that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, a man for whom I have the utmost respect. He called for a referendum. I think that we sometimes make our greatest mistakes when we choose not to listen to senior, experienced citizens, particularly those like my hon. Friend who have so much experience.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, which has been engaging, thought-provoking and entertaining. It is also a delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who has shown that he is our Conservative Phileas Fogg, as he has wandered around Europe so much and gained so much experience. I did not realise that he also speaks five languages. He towers over us in so many ways.
	The debate is on European affairs but we have focused on the European summit, as that will take place shortly, and in particular on what might be on its agenda. We have agreed that the idea of a constitution will certainly be there, and the background to that has been thoroughly discussed. In 2004, all the European Union countries were asked to participate in a referendum, and our Government pledged that we would have one, but everything came to a grinding halt when Holland and France voted no. Therefore, the great plan for a European constitution ground toa halt.
	What did we do? Instead of seizing the initiative, we began a two-year period of reflection, for some of which we held the EU presidency. The big EU bus was parked right outside No. 10 Downing street, the keys were handed to us, and what did we do? We twiddled our thumbs, rather than grasping the wheel, revving the engine and driving the bus in the direction we wanted to go. We have missed the opportunity to take the country, and Europe, in a new direction.
	Germany has a different approach. Its "Vorsprung durch Technik" attitude has meant that it has not been idle while holding the EU presidency. It has done some homework, and its intentions for the summit are clear. Angela Merkel said recently:
	"I absolutely want this constitutional treaty. . .we need a constitution to have a Europe that has the power to act."
	Germany wants to set out a plan at the EU summit: it wants to push for an intergovernmental conference next year, and for this new treaty.
	We should consider what the new constitution will lead to. There will be a permanent President of the European Council, a permanent EU Foreign Minister and the EU's own diplomatic service, and there will also be action to give legal force to the charter of fundamental rights, which could allow the European Court of Justice to rule on matters such as strikes. There will also be a new system of weighted voting for member states and the abolition of national vetoes over police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. If that is not enough, there will also be the ability to sign treaties. All in all, there would be quite a change, and a major step towards a federal state of Europe. We need an opportunity not only to debate that, but to voteon it.
	The situation is ironic, because the last time we had a debate on a constitution, the UK, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Poland postponed their referendums following the results in France and Holland. Only two of the 27 EU countries ratified the constitution via a full referendum: Spain and Luxembourg. Sixteen out of 27 nations did not offer their citizens the chance to vote. The people of Europe have not had an opportunity to participate fully in this debate. That is wrong.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that intervention. I fear that it might be wise for the three of us to discuss this issue outside the Chamber, where we can have a good debate on it. I will remain focused on what I am trying to say.
	What the EU does and what it should not do isat the heart of our discussion today. The European Community, to which we originally signed up, was a trading base designed to stand up to the might of Japan, the USA and others. In terms of what the EU can do today to unify 27 countries that are so different in many ways, there is a threshold. A trading platform, yes; political master of 27 nations, no. The European Parliament can of course improve its track record in many ways, without trying to expand what it does.
	We have discussed all sorts of issues today, and in the time remaining to me I want to cover a couple of them, the first of which is the structure and spending of the EU itself. The accounts have failed 11 years in a row, which is not a good starting point in trying to win over hearts and minds regarding what goes on in Brussels. There are two Parliaments, which is ridiculous and a colossal waste of money, and does not make people enamoured of the running of that democratic process. Regional assemblies and regional development agencies are ideas that stemmed from Brussels. They have been imposed on the UK without our having a say in the matter. In Bournemouth, Dorset and the south-west in general, regional assemblies are having a hugely negative impact. They are imposing development plans and building 20,000 houses in our area, without our having any say. That structure has been imposed on the south-west, thereby taking power away from local authorities, simply in order to fit into a European model that I do not agree with at all.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) made an interesting speech in which the discussed further integration on defence matters. He mentioned sharing defence technology. The French Leclerc, the German Leopard, the British Challenger and the American Abrams tanks are all made by different companies, and they are made better because those companies compete with each other. That point must be reconciled with my hon. Friend's desire for greater integration. I am very concerned that there is a huge overlap—the Minister for Europe, who is back in his place, was partly responsible for that—between what NATO and EUFOR are doing. We cannot have 60,000 troops ready to move as a rapid reaction force without taking away from NATO's ability. I am not saying that the EU does not have a role to play in, for example, peacekeeping, which it is doing in certain areas, but it cannot participate in war fighting or launching a rapid reaction ability, without jeopardising the current NATO set-up.
	A great example of that point is Sudan. There is not only a NATO operation with 60 or 70 troops, but—just down the road—an EU operation. They are both sending messages back to different locations in Brussels, both doing exactly the same thing. That is a complete waste of effort. Afghanistan is another example, with EU operations mimicking what NATO is doing. The EU could work much more positively,as I have suggested to the Minister before, by co-ordinating international development. It could do that in a way that no other country or organisation can. The UN is no good at that, because it does not have the might. The EU is sitting on a ton of money; it could co-ordinate the US aid money and all the other international development pots. We are failing in Afghanistan partly because of the lack of co-ordination between the international development groups. The EU could take the lead if it had a robust level of authority and people were allowed to work only through it. That would be a positive role for the EU.
	We have talked about climate change, but as there are time limits, I will not touch on that issue. On the issue of energy, I suggested to the Minister when we had the presidency of the EU that a low-lying fruit that we could easily have plucked was the creation of a common gas market. That would have protected gas prices in the UK. Every time there is a problem in Russia, it ripples across Europe and affects gas prices for all our constituents in a way that we cannot control. The Germans can control what happens, because they own most of the infrastructure.

Philip Dunne: I welcome this debate for two reasons. First, I made my maiden speech in a European debate immediately after the Dutchand French referendum results. I have not had an opportunity to speak on the issue since, although it is a matter of considerable concern to a minority of people in this country. Those who hold views about it do so very strongly, as has been evident from this debate.
	Secondly, I welcome the debate because today is the first time that the Government have been prepared to engage in discussion on their negotiating stance before the summit that begins tomorrow. That is in stark contrast to the approach adopted by many other European Governments. I was recently in Denmark with the Public Accounts Committee, and we had the opportunity to meet the Danish Parliament's EU scrutiny committee. Its chairman told us that the responsible Minister attends the committee every month to brief its members on the Danish stance as negotiations take place. That seems an entirely appropriate way to inform those in the Danish Parliament with an interest in the subject, and it is very regrettable that this Foreign Secretary in particular has chosen to duck the issue and to refuse to discuss itat all.

Paul Keetch: It is not my job to defend the Foreign Secretary, but I must point out that she appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee for two hours yesterday. Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues were present. In addition, she appeared—I think last week—before the European Scrutiny Committee.

Philip Dunne: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the Foreign Secretary's actions in the past two weeks, but they are very belated. We have been trying to establish the Government's position for two years, and this is the first time that the right hon. Lady has been prepared to discuss it in this Chamber. She has been challenged previously on the matter at Foreign Office questions, and she has declined any opportunity for debate.
	We know why the Government have been reluctant to get involved in debate on these matters, and their flip-flopping in respect of Europe was well illustrated earlier by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. It has become apparent that there is open disagreement between the Prime Minister, the next Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe about whether there should be a referendum, and, if so, on what basis. The Government's position seems to change from week to week.
	I want to focus on some of the points that the Foreign Secretary made about the constitutional implications of the proposed treaty and the need for a referendum. She said that she supported having a full-time chairman of the European Council, with the current powers. She could not bring herself to use the word "president", but my concern is that any move to having a full-time president appointed for, say, the two and a half years set out in the original constitutional treaty would have a profound impact on the conduct of EU business, and on the influence of member states on the determination of future policy.
	Having a full-time chairman of the Council would also instantly remove the revolving presidency. Views are divided about whether that is an efficient way to conduct business in Europe, but it provides a focus for each country, when it assumes the presidency, to get engaged in Europe and to identify its priorities in trying to change and progress the European agenda. To give credit where it is due, the Prime Minister moved Africa and the millennium development goals up the European agenda, something that might not have happened had we not had the presidency, but the ability to do such things would disappear if a full-time president were appointed.
	A president of the Council would have no direct link to the electorate in any member state. Inevitably, that would serve to institutionalise the post and render it bureaucratic and centralised, lacking the legitimacy provided by election. In addition, and by definition, the person performing the role would not be allowed to hold a current national office. That means that he or she would be either retired, or recently rejected by national voters.
	The president would have power over the some 3,500 civil servants in the Brussels bureaucracy. Inevitably, that would tend to accrete power to the role, as the postholder would seek to direct the civil service to do more. That is an unavoidable consequence whena bureaucracy has a figurehead who is essentially responsible for managing that bureaucracy and who would not be rotated out of position regularly.
	The post of president would fundamentally change the nature of the legislative process in Brussels, with individual member states no longer taking the lead in negotiating with others over issues that come before the Council. Legislation would be developed between the Commission and the Council, with member states having only a tangential relationship to the process.
	My second point relates to the Foreign Secretary's comments about a common foreign and security policy. She said that the Government were supportive of such a policy, but she indicated that it would need to be achieved by unanimity, which sounds like shorthand for accepting the notion of an EU Foreign Minister and, as we read yesterday in the  Financial Times, that is confirmed by the Spanish Minister for Europe who said:
	"We were prepared to find a title other than foreign minister, but we are not prepared to change the substance of his role."
	If that goes through, it sounds as though the Government will support that position.
	What would be the consequences if we had an EU Foreign Minister? It would give the Commissiona foreign policy role long opposed by British Governments from both sides. The scope for divergent views would gradually be eroded, despite what the Foreign Secretary said, because the original treaty proposed that the Foreign Minister should have power to make proposals by majority decision rather than by unanimity; to run a powerful EU diplomatic service, which would undoubtedly try to take over the responsibilities of our diplomatic representation; and to speak for members at key international meetings such as the United Nations Security Council. The post itself would put pressure on all those aspects of British Foreign Office representation internationally, which would be difficult to resist. In the past, the Government have always resisted such proposals, but they were prepared to give way at the time of the last constitutional treaty.

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend and neighbour makes an interesting point. The interests of the Commonwealth are of relatively little importance for other European member states; it is for our Government to stand up for the Commonwealth in international forums, and that representation would be lost if the powers of our Foreign Secretaries were gradually transferred to an EU Foreign Minister over time.
	My third point is about the UK veto and blocking powers. The Foreign Secretary talked about support for measures for improving efficiency and subsidiarity, and I am sure that almost everybody in the Chamber would sign up to those. Our concern is how they would translate into practice. The proposal in the original constitutional treaty was to reduce the ability of member states to block legislative proposals they opposed, and that treaty would have done so by approximately a third. At present, there are three hurdles to overcome before securing the passage of legislation: 72 per cent. of weighted votes in Council, plus 62 per cent. of population plus 50 per cent. of member states. The constitutional treaty proposed scrapping one of the hurdles to leave only two: 65 per cent. of population and 55 per cent. of member states. By definition, that would inevitably make it harder for a country—even a large member state such as the UK—to block measures that it felt were not in its national interest.
	Although the procedures of the European Commission may need some strengthening, it is of concern that we are considering watering down our ability to protect British interests, in particular as they affect British business, where there may be conflicts between one member state and another—between large and small countries or particular styles of conducting business.
	Three aspects apply and I shall touch on them briefly. The first is the UK's derogation from the 48-hour working week. A number of countries, notably France and Spain, and the Commission itself want to scrap the derogation. The Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that the cost to the economy of losing our ability to derogate from the 48-hour working week would be £9 billion a year.
	The second point relates to a measure that has recently gone through and will come into force later this year. In the financial services sector, London has overtaken New York as the global capital of finance and has a far more significant role to play than any other capital in Europe—in fact, I think that I am right in saying, than all other capitals in Europe combined. London has by far the biggest influence over the financial markets. The markets in financial instruments directive was significantly amended as a result of the stance that the British Government were able to take. Had the procedures for making decisions been watered down, it may well have been impossible to have secured those amendments. That would have damaged our financial community.
	The third issue, which is topical, is the temporary workers directive. The UK has some 700,000 more temporary workers than any other country in Europe. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that if states seek to force through equal rights for temporary workers—compared with full-time workers—that will have a significant impact on reducing employment in this country in particular.
	Yesterday, the president of the CBI, Richard Lambert, was quoted as saying that the revamped constitution poses a major threat to Britain's labour laws and commercial ethos. He referred in particular to the charter of fundamental rights. That has been characterised as a red line of the Prime Minister's. However, as was said earlier—notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—there are aspects of the charter of fundamental rights that are already capable of being enshrined in English law. Mr. Lambert said:
	"Giving the Charter any kind of legal status would runthe risk of opening up our employment laws to damaging challenges."
	He continued:
	"We would run the risk of allowing the European Courtof Justice—a purposeful body, looking to stamp its own interpretation on the law—to overrule carefully crafted rules on how strikes operate in the UK."
	That could, for example, extend to cross-border picketing and the like—not something that anybody in business in this country would welcome.
	In conclusion, the arguments that the Government are making in relation to the referendum are extraordinarily convoluted and confused. In 2004, the Prime Minister argued that the original treaty did not change the fundamental relationship between the UK and the EU, but he still accepted that there was a need for a referendum. Today and last week, the Foreign Secretary argued precisely the opposite in relation to the treaty, to justify a referendum.
	According to the next Prime Minister, only if the Government are defeated in their negotiations will he sanction a referendum. That just shows that in 2004 the referendum was granted by the Prime Minister purely for reasons of political expediency. The refusal now to hold a referendum shows the Government's disdain for the people. While travelling round the country, the next Prime Minister has been claiming that he wants to listen to the people. He should have the courage to do so and allow a referendum if there is any transfer of power to Brussels through the treaty.

James Clappison: I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. I must apologise to you and the House for not being present throughout, Madam Deputy Speaker. Among other things, I have been speaking in an Adjournment debate concerning a matter in Hertfordshire on which many thousands of my constituents have written to me.
	I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak because, beyond any doubt, I feel that there are highly significant constitutional issues at stake—on any view of the situation. The Commission and other member states are seeking significant constitutional changes and our own Prime Minister has been talking of the red lines that he is going to adopt in response. It is absolutely right that we should debate the proposed changes in the House.
	I also believe that an issue of trust is at stake. There is a perception in some quarters that there is a need to restore trust in government. We have heard a little about that—we might hear more. The question of the referendum touches on the issue of trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) rightly reminded the House that the Prime Minister promised the country a referendum on the constitutional treaty in April 2004. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the referendum was promised no matter what happened in other countries that voted on the treaty beforehand. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked whether a no vote in a "small country" would stop the referendum, the Prime Minister said:
	"The referendum should go ahead in any event."—[ Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 164.]
	There have been two no votes in member states, and the promise has come and gone.
	The Government now accept that there should bea referendum if negotiations lead to a new treatythat has the "characteristics of a constitution". The Government seem to have adopted that key phrase, which has been repeated by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, as the criterion against which the need for a referendum should be judged.

James Clappison: Before my right hon. Friend intervenes—I know that he will make an excellent point—may I conclude my own point by saying that when the Home Affairs Committee, an all-party Committee of the House, considered the matter, it unanimously reached the conclusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has just set out. In a recent report, the Committee concluded with respect to the criminal law:
	"The Constitutional Treaty proposed making elements of criminal law subject to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, and the Commission still supports this proposal. The evidence we have seen does not persuade us that, as things stand at present, there are sufficient benefits in terms of tackling crime, either here in the UK or across the EU, to justify such a major transfer of power away from Member States as would be entailed by a switch of criminal law from the third to the first pillar."
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is extremely persuasive and reasoned. He might persuade me to take a different view, but I doubt that he will persuade me away from the view that I took, together with all the members of the Select Committee.

John Gummer: I shall not try to persuade my hon. Friend to change his view on that. I am trying to bring unanimity. The case that he is arguing is that we should not have a referendum at all on these issues, which is my position, or we should have a referendum in either circumstance. The Government have been trying to have a referendum when it is convenient to them and not have one when it is not convenient to them. Thatis the most intolerable position to uphold. The Government are wholly wrong in both cases.

James Clappison: I am happy to agree entirely and unreservedly with my right hon. Friend. He has expressed an honourable point of view. I was far from convinced by some of the exchanges that we heard across the Dispatch Box earlier today, particularly when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was speaking on behalf of the Opposition about the case for a referendum, and the case that the Government made in response.
	We were reminded of what had happened over Maastricht, Amsterdam and the original treaty of Rome, and we went back to 1975. It does not matter what happened then; what matters is what this Prime Minister promised this House and the country when he made his commitment in the House, which—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—also appeared in the Labour party manifesto at the last general election. That is an issue of trust here and now for this Prime Minister. He did not stand up and say, "I promise you a referendum on the constitutional treaty, but I may change my mind in view of everything that has happened in the past." He made an unequivocal pledge and an issue of trust arises as a result.
	These are vital constitutional issues that would amount to a major shift of power and competence to the EU, particularly on the question of criminal law. The criminal law obtains to a nation itself, and a nation should make its own decisions on that. It is a characteristic of a nation that it has the opportunity to make decisions on the criminal law and to decide what types of conduct it wishes to criminalise and whichit does not, after debate in individual national Parliaments.
	In practice, as a result of the merging of the third pillar into the first pillar, qualified majority voting and the acquisition of existing community law, criminal procedure and substantive criminal law could be decided not in this House but in Europe where we may find ourselves in the minority, and as a result of qualified majority voting the criminal law of this country could be changed even though there was a majority in the House and in the country against such a change. That is a fundamental line to cross.

Robert Goodwill: I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate, because as a former Member of the European Parliament between 1999 and 2004 European policy was my life for that period. I am pleased that a number of Tory Members were elected when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was leading the party. Dare I say that it was possibly his finest hour when not only did we win the European election in the country, but we gained more votes in Yorkshire and the Humber than the Labour party, and that resulted in my election. I agree with every word of my right hon. Friend's opening remarks.
	The Minister for Europe, who is on the Front Bench, is also a former Member of the European Parliament. Furthermore, not many people know that the Deputy Prime Minister—we enjoyed his swan-song at the Dispatch Box today—was a Member of the European Parliament.
	I have listened with interest to the views expressed about the effectiveness of the rotating presidency and the question whether we should have a full-time president of the European Union. It would be a big mistake to opt for a full-time president, but the rotating presidency does not necessarily serve our needs. Small countries often surprise us by how well they perform in the chair when they have the presidency. Equally, some of the big countries—I am thinking of the last French presidency—have disappointed us by trying to push through an ambitious agenda. It is not the job of the presidency to try to push things through.
	We often view with dismay the amount of European Union legislation. It is little surprise that so much legislation is instigated, when every six months a new presidency arrives with a shopping list for legislation almost as long as that with which my children present me before Christmas. Such legislation never reaches the statute book during the six-month presidency, but the Commission's wheels are put in motion, which results in sausage-machine legislation. That is beneficialin some cases—for example, the environment—but in other cases it means that our businesses are wrapped in bureaucracy and red tape, which prevents them from generating the wealth that we need.
	The European Parliament has come of age. When it was first formed, it was a talking shop that tendedto attract people who were enthusiastic about the European project. In recent years, Members of the European Parliament have served our nation with a more pragmatic view. Many of them can be described as Eurosceptic, and I am proud that that soubriquet was attached to me.
	The co-decision process has helped the peoples of Europe to have their voices heard. In a Parliament such as the European Parliament, where no party is in overall control, the co-decision process works very well. I was environment deputy co-ordinator for the European People's party and European Democrats group, and we achieved a lot through the co-decision process. I was often telephoned on a Monday morning by Ministers from UK, who said, "We are having no luck with our Socialist group. They are all toeing the line. Will you try to push things in our direction?" I am pleased to say that we spent a lot of time working with Transport Ministers on trying to make the legislation on vehicle emissions have less of an impact.

Robert Goodwill: In a Parliament with no overall majority, the smaller groups often have a disproportionate impact and influence on legislation. Compromises are often struck not in meetings, but in coffee bars. Although it is true that if the Socialist group and the EPP were to get together they would have a majority, in many cases smaller groups such as the Greens or the Liberals have a lot of influence. I look forward to the formation of our new group in the European Parliament. We can work with our former colleagues in the EPP on matters on which we agree, but it is important when we disagree that we can put a man on the front row of the European Parliament to argue the case for the UK. I look forward to the formation of a group involving Czechs and other colleagues and hope that it will contribute to our voice being better represented in the European Parliament and the British interest being better represented generally.
	The Economic and Social Committee is well past its sell-by date. It is only a talking shop, and we should scrap it. Similarly, on the Committee of the Regions, how many hon. Members can tell me that they get good feedback from that committee or that views expressed in their region are being represented and are having an effect in Europe? That Committee is also past its sell-by date. It is interesting that an amendment that I proposed in the European Parliament calling for the regions themselves to co-fund the Committee was roundly thrown out because people realised that if that happened the regions would not wish that talking shop to perpetuate. The European Parliament has come of age. It can speak for the people of our country and our regions; we do not need the Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions.

Mark Francois: It is a genuine pleasure to sum up this debate for Her Majesty's Opposition. It is also a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in his place. As he will know, I have always had considerable time for him, and since I was appointed to this new job I understand that he has put aside considerable time for me. I look forward to spending some of that time with him.
	I will not attempt to compete with my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) in terms of their pan-European credentials. I can claim a French surname and the fact that my late mother was Italian, but having heard their speeches they could probably beat me hands down.
	Several themes have been touched on. For instance, several right hon. and hon. Members mentioned Kosovo, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who, as usual, spoke very knowledgeably on the subject; his speech bears further reading.
	However, the topic that has dominated today's discussion has been the proposed attempts to revive the European constitution, which was so clearly rejected by the French and Dutch people back in 2005. Although the debate was sometimes eloquent, unfortunately it has left us none the wiser about exactly which powers the Government propose to cede to the European Union on our behalf as a result of this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), in a typically passionate speech, said that all treaties are important. He is right; and this one could be especially important.
	That being the case, I ask why at some pointsduring the debate not a single Labour Back Bencher was sitting in the Chamber. We had one loyal Parliamentary Private Secretary—I hope that her Whips have noted it—and the duty Whip, but for long periods not a single authentic Labour Back Bencher was here to debate the matter or to support their Government's position. In contrast, 13 Conservative Back Benchers spoke on this important issue. I will attempt in the time that I have to refer to at least some of those speeches.
	As we know, following a period of what was obviously very thorough reflection, the German presidency, in particular, began moves to seek to revive a treaty that many of us had genuinely been led to believe was already dead. The Prime Minister himself stated:
	"What you cannot do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and bring it back with a few amendments and say: 'have another go.' You cannot do that."
	Nevertheless, this spring a questionnaire was circulated to EU member states which, inter alia, suggested that the revived treaty should use
	"a different terminology, without changing the legal substance."
	Since that time, and despite protestations to the contrary by Ministers, discussions have clearly taken place between European capitals on how the treaty might be revived, while our own Parliament has, until very recently, been kept deliberately in the dark. For instance, when the Foreign Secretary appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee last Thursday, she amazingly insisted that
	"nothing you could really call negotiations have taken place."
	However, on the same day, President Sarkozy of France told a journalist:
	"Tony Blair and I have just agreed on what might be the framework for a simplified treaty. That is quite something."
	Indeed it is. The Foreign Secretary was at it again yesterday when, after a long delay, she finally gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) serves on that Committee. He spoke well today and we should acknowledge the valuable role that he played on behalf of this House in the detailed negotiations on the original constitution.
	I do not wish to be ungallant to the Foreign Secretary, but perhaps she will allow me, to use the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, a little tease. Her performance before the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday was not the strongest evidence session that I have witnessed from a Secretary of State. She still tried to insist that serious negotiations were not under way, when the President of France had already told us that much has been agreed. She denied at one stage that any sherpas had been involved in the treaty process, only to correct herself as she knew that those sherpas had already met several times. She even had to be corrected in public by her officials on the single legal personality for the European Union.
	Conversely, on Monday at the Liaison Committee, our negotiator in chief, the Prime Minister—who is running the show, as most people realise—laid out four so-called red lines, and was adamant that he would not allow them to be breached. He declared that if they were adhered to, there would be no need for a referendum. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks effectively demolished that claim in his opening speech and showed that the so-called red lines have been carefully drafted to give the appearance of maintaining key powers while potentially surrendering significant powers. I shall give one example rather than go through the entire list again.
	The fourth red line, as outlined to the Liaison Committee, mentions that
	"we will not agree to anything that moves to qualified majority voting something that can have a big say in our own tax and benefits system".
	That means that we might accept QMV on something that constitutes a "small say" in that vital policy, but of course, the difference is not defined. The so-called red lines have been carefully worded and are effectively red herrings, which are designed principally to distract attention from what is being given up without the need for the Government to keep their word and hold a referendum.
	The Government's position on a referendum has shifted back and forth. In announcing a referendum on the original European constitution back in April 2004, the Prime Minister clearly stated:
	"Parliament should debate it in detail and decide uponit. Then let the people have the final say."—[ Official Report,20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c.157.]
	The 2005 Labour party manifesto rather bullishly stated:
	"We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a yes vote."
	On Monday, the Prime Minister declared that, provided that his new red lines were not breached, there was no need for a referendum.

Mark Francois: I hear what my right hon. Friend says but, for the past 10 years, this country has been graced with a Prime Minister who can passionately believe several different things at the same time. So, at first, the Prime Minister adamantly opposed a referendum, then he was adamantly in favour of letting the people have their say. Now he is adamantly against a referendum because that suits his purposes. I am not responsible for his mental machinations.  [Interruption.] That is for others to judge. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is worried that I am being too nice to the Prime Minister, if he will just wait two minutes, I will solve his worry.

Mark Francois: I will come on to that in just a moment. Now that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has finally joined us, let me say that I was hoping that he might turn up. I have with me a copy of an interview that he gave to the  New Statesman on 13 December 2004. I quote the article:
	"MacShane admits that he was won over after a Commons debate in which not a single speaker discussed the substance of the constitutional treaty, but merely the question of whether people were to be given a say. When the Liberal Democrats demanded that it be put to a vote, 'I turned to Jack and said, "Jack, we're"—
	"defeated" was not quite the word he used then, but he then said:
	"We've got to go for a referendum. I don't think we can hold out."
	I am therefore delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has come here this evening to give me a chance to read that article out. It was very good of him to turn up—even at the 11th hour.
	Let me focus briefly on the position of the Minister for Europe. He was Secretary of State for Europe for15 minutes, but he is the Minister for Europe now. At the weekend, he effectively defied No. 10, hinting that there might be a case for a referendum after all. He told the BBC:
	"Clearly a judgment has got to be made in terms of what is in the final package. It is important not to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations".
	That is what he said last Saturday on "The World this Weekend". Subsequently, that was brutally contradicted in a No. 10 briefing, which described that suggestion—if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—as
	"a load of old cobblers".
	Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Government would probably be able to give a decision on whether or not to call for a referendum by Monday—presumably when the Prime Minister makes his post-summit statementto the House. We would welcome that clarity, but I noticed that in her opening speech, the Foreign Secretary appeared to be rowing back slightly from that position, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks picked up earlier.
	In the meantime, who are we to believe? Is it the Prime Minister, who now seems firmly opposed toa referendum? Is it the Chancellor, who is now apparently committed to open and transparent Government, but who remains as opaque as ever on this question, as indeed he was yesterday morning on GMTV? Is it the Foreign Secretary, who I am afraid to say is struggling to remain in the loop at all on this, or is it the Minister for Europe who is tacking between No. 10 and No. 11, just struggling to remain in a job?— [Interruption.] While we have the Minister for Europe's attention, when he replies, will he tell us whether he is going to the European Council or not? Given that he is supposed to be the Minister for Europe, some of us would like to know whether he is going to be present. Perhaps he could provide a simple yes or no answer on that!

Andrew MacKinlay: This will be better than a mention in a trade magazine. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that in the unlikely event ofa Conservative Government, each time there is an additional alteration in the management and stewardship of the European Union, that Government would, on every occasion, put the matter to a referendum?

Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been waiting at Milan airport forfour hours trying to get back because a plane did not deliver me. The hon. Gentleman is therefore doubly discourteous—and not for the first time.

Mark Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having flown to Italy several times because of my mother's family, I realise that there are a number of problems with Italian air traffic control, but I am not responsible for them any more than the right hon. Gentleman is.
	Given the apparent confusion of the Government, we might wish to bear in mind the perspective of a senior Foreign Office official who was quoted in  The Sunday Times last week. He told the newspaper that he sat in on the weekly strategy meetings relating toall this, which started as long ago as Christmas. He stated that the bottom line for the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to avoid having a referendum at all costs. As the official put it,
	"We can't have one because we'd lose. It's that simple."
	The whole process has been badly handled from the start, and the House has largely been kept in the dark until almost the last moment. We in the House and those in the nation outside are now left in the unenviable position of seeing an unpopular Prime Minister at the fag-end of his premiership playing games with our birthright in a desperate search for any legacy at all other than Iraq. We are witnessing what amounts to a deception of the British people as a result.
	Even Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who led the original constitutional convention that devised the original treaty—and whom even the Minister for Europe would struggle to describe as a Eurosceptic—has been scathing about the methods being employed to mask the true nature of this new document. He said in  Le Monde on 14 June:
	"The public are being led, without knowing it, to adopt the proposals we dare not put to them directly".
	Similarly,  The Independent, a newspaper hardly renowned for its Euroscepticism, argued in an editorial entitled "The wrong way to conduct business" just four days after that statement in  Le Monde:
	"The question is whether or not a package of fairly weighty changes that will undoubtedly affect Europe's shape and destiny should—in this country at any rate—be decided in a referendum. The answer is simple: it should and it must."
	The Government's game plan is now fairly evident for all to see. Whatever is agreed at the EU Council, they will declare it a great victory. They will insist that their red lines remain fully intact and say that such a "tidying-up exercise", as they would describe it, does not require a referendum. I do not believe that the British people are so gullible as to believe that; they will see the stitch-up for exactly what it is. In contrast, our position remains clear. If this new treaty, whatever it is to be called, represents any further transfer of power from Britain to the EU, we will demand that the people of this country be allowed to have their say in a free and fair referendum.

Geoff Hoon: Today's debate on the forthcoming meeting of the European Council has been lively, familiar and only occasionally repetitive. Despite what the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, Ihave heard his speech before. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) observed that it was a single transferable speech. I suspect that most of us could have recited the speech made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for him; I have certainly heard it a number of times before, starting as long ago as the Maastricht debate, whenhe was at the extreme edge of what was then a pro-European Conservative party. He now occupies the centre ground of what has, sadly, become an anti-European party. At least he can say that he has been consistent, however, which is not something that can be claimed for his Front Bench with any confidence.

Geoff Hoon: I asked the hon. Gentleman a question. He spoke eloquently about the need to take effective action to deal with immigration. Others among his colleagues have talked about the need to protect this country from international terrorism. The truth, however, is that measures to take effective action in those areas can be blocked by one member state out of 27. If we are serious about dealing with international terrorists who cross borders, we must take decisions by qualified majority voting; otherwise, a single country can stop it. He cannot speak eloquently in favour of dealing with immigration and tackling terrorism unless he is prepared to will the means to do so. So far, he has not done that.
	After the United Kingdom joined the European Community under a Conservative Government, the first treaty changes took place in 1986 when the Single European Act was ratified by Parliament. Despite the then Prime Minister's reputation for being a hard-line Eurosceptic, the noble Baroness Thatcher agreed to the substantive changes introduced by that Act, which set out a timetable for the creation of the single market, with most legislation being voted on by qualified majority. The Act considerably extended the scope of European decision making and the use of qualified majority voting in key areas from the environment to health and safety at work. The latter is, for example, the legal basis for the working time directive. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) claimed that double majority voting would lead to the loss of our opt-out on the working time directive. I assure him that that is simply not the case. It would not change our blocking minority.
	In fact, the Single European Act gave rise to almost 300 pieces of legislation as part of the efforts between 1986 and 1992 to complete the single market. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that the Single European Act contained only 12 new areas of qualified majority voting. Actually, it gaverise to hundreds of different directives—significant legislation transforming our relationship with the European Union. The Single European Act also gave extensive new powers to the European Parliament. For the first time in our history, Members of the European Parliament could have a real say on European legislation, rather than simply being consulted, as was the case previously.
	Two years later, the noble Baroness Thatcher declared:
	"Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community."
	I sometimes wonder whether those anti-Europeans on the Conservative Benches who kneel at the altar of Baroness Thatcher's reputation have read those words. The approach of Opposition Members has changed dramatically. Far too many of them seem to believe that little Englanders can somehow solve the cross-border problems of the 21st century in splendid isolation.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, for example, talked of the need to create a flexible European Union. He probably dreams about it, but that is the only thing that he is capable of doing at the moment, as he seems to have failed to notice that in order to get a flexible European Union, we would have to change the treaties. Those treaties would have to be changed by unanimity, there would have to be a constitutional debate, and he would have to secure the support of 26 other countries. So far, he has secured the support of one—on a good day, with the wind in the right direction, and with an "R" in the month. All subsequent treaty changes have been ratified through Parliament: the Maastricht treaty in 1993, the Amsterdam treaty in 1998 and the Nice treaty in 2002.
	The Maastricht treaty, arguably the most fundamental of all existing European treaties, involves the most extensive transfer of power, or competence, from Westminster to Brussels. It provided for the introduction of a common and foreign security policy and a European security and defence policy, and a new competence for the European Union in justice and home affairs. The first reference in the European Union's history was made to the European convention on human rights, on which the charter of fundamental rights is based. Qualified majority voting was introduced in 32 articles, 15 articles were moved to co-decision, and for the first time in history the European Parliament was given legislative powers equal to that of the Council on a range of policies. The Maastricht treaty introduced European citizenship and the European Union. It was ratified by this House in July 1993.

Geoff Hoon: I agree with the right hon. Gentlemanto the extent that it should be a matter of principle.The principle that seems to govern the use of a referendum—in this respect, my view is not so far from that of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—is whether significant constitutional change is involved. We had a referendum in 1975, there have been referendums on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is provision for a referendum in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and we have committed ourselves to a referendum on the euro. Those are all fundamental changes, but not the sort of day-to-day changes that have been made in the House on a three-line Tory Whip without a referendum.
	That is the area of principle with which Conservative Front Benchers have failed to deal. They have simply failed to explain why their position has changed so dramatically. The only difference appears to me to be that they are now in opposition, and will remain in opposition.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that the Government ultimately decided that they had to have a referendum on the constitutional treaty because it was demonstrated—I think that I played some small part in this—that as there was a repeal provision there was a fundamental change in the structural relationship? I have tried to demonstrate that again today. Will the Minister not accept that the distinction between that constitutional treaty and what is now being proposedis a distinction without a sufficient difference and therefore, on the Government's own terms, a referendum is required?

Geoff Hoon: I am slightly sorry that I gave way. I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to set out in a few brief sentences the principle underlying his position, as he has failed to give any principle. All he has done is simply give an exposition on why it is now importantto have a referendum. The Conservative party has changed its position so frequently on this subject that it is difficult to know what he might like to say on it.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, raises a good and a principled point. There will certainly be a thorough discussion at the European Council summit of proposals to strengthen the role of national Parliaments. That issue was raised by a number of Members, and it is important that that discussion takes place, not least because of the votes in the Netherlands and France. The Dutch Government will be advancing that argument, I anticipate, fairly vigorously.
	The Government have made it clear through the Prime Minister that we will only support any negotiated outcome if our red lines are respected. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that those red lines will remain red. They have been negotiated within the Government, and they are the clear position of this Government and will not be breached. Again, the difference between this Government and the Conservatives is that they simply have not understood or reflected the strong tradition of parliamentary democracy in this country. John Major said at the time of the Maastricht treaty that it is not in our parliamentary tradition to hold referendums in this country. The then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Hurd, put it rather well:
	"The House considered the option of a referendum and decisively rejected it...We decided to do the job for which we were elected rather than to pass that job back to those who sent us here."—[ Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 383.]
	That is a very authoritative statement by a leading Conservative, the then Foreign Secretary, about the position on referendums. I repeat that this present political opportunism on the part of the Conservatives does them no good.
	Over the past 10 years, this Government have putthe UK at the heart of Europe. We are driving the European agenda and working with our partners. Indeed, our relationship with France and Germany has never been better, at a time when the Leader ofthe Opposition cannot even get a meeting with the Christian Democrat Chancellor. The Leader of the Opposition claims to be modernising the policies of the Conservative party, yet when it comes to the European Union, he has taken a backward step in the direction of isolation. According to the spin from Conservative central office today, he is too busy tomorrow to attend a meeting before the summit of a large group of influential centre-right leaders, consisting of 11 heads of state and government from the European Union and members of the Commission, including the current President of the European Council, the German Chancellor, and the French, Czech, Dutch, Swedish and Greek Prime Ministers. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) seems fascinated by other people's diaries. Perhaps he could tell us what the Leader of the Opposition is doing. Perhaps he is visiting a grammar school in Buckinghamshire with the hon. Member for Buckingham, or visiting a museum somewhere.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham shakes his head. It demonstrates the isolation of the Conservative party and the Conservative leadership. Harold Macmillan lodged the first application to join the common market and Edward Heath took this country into the European Union. Margaret Thatcher signed—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
	 It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Diana Johnson: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate this evening on an important issue for my constituents. The debate arises from the sale of the remaining shares held by Liberal Democrat-controlled Hull city council in the local telecommunications company, Kingston Communications. That action was taken without any public debate or discussion, and it deserves some public scrutiny. I know that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) are also concerned about that decision and the effect that it will have on local services and jobs, especially at a time when the global activities of private equity companies are causing such public concern.
	At the outset, it is certainly worth setting out a little of the proud history of the local telephone company in Hull. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, like many major cities, Hull developed its own local telephone company, and in 1902 the council gained its first licence to operate services, with the first exchange opening in 1904. To celebrate its golden jubilee, Hull Corporation produced a "golden pages", a forerunner to the "Yellow Pages", which was printed on gold paper and distributed with a classified business section. Hull has often pioneered good ideas like that.
	Hull became famous for having its own municipally owed telephone company—the only remaining one in the UK—with its own distinctive cream-coloured telephone boxes, designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, who also created BT's more famous red ones. It also had tariffs that meant that customers could speak for as long as they wanted to other customers in the local area, long before the BT friends and family packages. Local people enjoyed better service for having a local telephone company.
	The company has continued to innovate, and was the first telephone network in the world to deploy 100 per cent. digital exchanges. In 1987 the Hull City Telephone Department became Kingston Communications plc, a company in its own right, although still 100 per cent. owned by the council. In 1999 the council took the decision to sell the telephone company, but retained a sizeable shareholding of 44.9 per cent. Many of my constituents bought shares too, such was the local commitment to a local business.
	Until a few weeks ago, Hull city council's shareholding in Kingston Communications stood at31 per cent. The link between the people of Hull, as service users and employees, and Kingston Communications had lasted for 105 years, but under the Lib Dem council elected in May 2007 the link survived for only 19 days. A link that had survived two world wars was broken by the Lib Dems within 3 weeks.
	I want to raise two points in this debate. First, I am particularly concerned about the hasty decision made by the Lib Dem council in Hull, which cashed in the remaining shareholding in Kingston Communications without any room for public debate or discussion. In particular, I want to explore the tension in law that exists when a local authority that owns shares in a publicly listed company has to make decisions about its shareholding. Apparently it must do that in private, but as a local authority it is democratically accountable to the wider electorate. That is a possible blind spot in local democracy.
	Secondly, I want to explore what I believe is the lack of strategic thinking by the Liberal Democrats in Hull when they took the decision. They have been timid in their decision making, and have failed to look at what is really in the city's best interests when it comes to developing a positive telecommunications and digital future for the area. They had the opportunity, by building on the historic telecommunications company, to work on and develop a pioneering approach in Hull. Other cities could only envy that, and I shall say a little more about that later.
	I do not intend to go through the pros and cons of the sale, merely to ask how a democratically elected council could take major decisions about its shareholding in a company with apparently no discussion or debate with the people on whose behalf they hold the shares. Given the company's long history with the people of Hull, and its current status as the city's only provider of telephone and internet services, the matter must surely be worth some discussion and debate.
	The sale took place very soon after the May 2007 local elections. There was no opportunity for a debate about the future of Hull city council's assets, and there was no mention of the issue in the Liberal Democrat election manifesto. The people of Hull have been denied a chance to have their say on a matter that directly affects their services and provides employment in the community. The suddenness of events and the lack of transparency have had the effect of making local democracy seem somehow irrelevant.
	I understand that there are rules that have to be applied when dealing with the disposal of shares, and I know that the Liberal Democrats in Hull have claimed that their hands were tied in this matter and that they could not go public with their plans. Of course I acknowledge that there are rules concerning the disposal of shares, but I also understand that the Financial Services Authority would have had no problem if the Liberal Democrat manifesto had contained a line setting out the council's intention to review its assets with a view to achieving the best rate of return, and to evaluate its shareholding in Kingston Communications.
	Clearly, a manifesto promise may not be realised, if the party that makes the promise is not returned to power. Alternatively, a party may not be able to follow through its manifesto, for all sorts of reasons. However, it is strange that the Liberal Democrats, who are always preaching to politicians about freedom of information, should have failed so miserably, when in power, to practise what they preach.
	There is a joke going around Hull at the moment: what is the difference between Hull city council's Kingston Communications shareholding committee and the local freemasons? The answer is that we have some idea of what goes on among the local freemasons, but we have no idea of what goes on in the Kingston Communications shareholding committee.
	It is surprising that the local Liberal Democrat manifesto stated that the party was going to ensure that its councillors engaged in "meaningful consultation" with local people. It claimed that
	"for too long in Hull, decisions have been taken behind closed doors with little regard to the views of the people whose communities and families they affect."
	Well, 19 days into its time in office, the Liberal Democrat council blew that one, did it not?
	My concern is simply that, in an age when all political parties want to gain the trust of local people, strengthen local democracy and engage and consultin a meaningful way, the action taken by the Liberal Democrats in Hull is arrogant. If there had been discussion in the local election campaign about such an important issue, at least there would have been some debate and discussion about an asset built up by generations of Hull people.
	My second point stems directly from that, and has to do with the possibilities flowing from the historical local telephone company and the resulting asset base that the council owned in Kingston Communications.I understand that the portfolio holder for Hull city council was advised that the dividend on the shareholding in Kingston Communications could be higher if the council sold its shares and reinvested in the market. However, I understand that other options, which could have been bolder and more focused on the future needs of the city and its people, were available.
	With a 31 per cent. shareholding in Kingston Communications, the council had a real opportunity to look at some interesting ideas to benefit the city where the company was born and had prospered. Since Iwas elected in May 2005, many of my constituentshave contacted me about the monopoly position of Kingston Communications in Hull. It is the only telecommunications and internet provider in the area, with uncontested dominance in the local market.Now the influence of local people through a major shareholding in the company has been lost; we have a straightforward privately owned monopoly supplier in the city, with no guarantees about choice or quality of telephone and internet services. Moreover, peoplehave no say in what happens to local Kingston Communications jobs.
	One option Hull city council could have considered was how to use its shareholding to force the management of Kingston Communications to realign the corporate strategy towards what is called an open horizontal model. That would have meant that the cabling in the city was brought under the ownership of the city—perhaps by forming a separate company to do that—to ensure that it benefited all who wanted to use it. There could have been investment to install fibre-optic cabling and to ensure that it was made available to all who needed it. The process is akin to the roads being available to whoever wishes to use them, with services provided by lots of different businesses that use the roads.
	I am informed that similar models are under development in cities in Europe, such as Amsterdam. An open access model would allow investment to fund an infrastructure upgrade in the city region and allow for telecom companies to compete with each other for customers by buying access to the fibre-optic network. It would allow the use of other service providers in Hull, so there would no longer be a monopoly supplier as at present. The model would yield great socio-economic wealth to the community of Hull, and put the city on the global map as the first in the UK to adopt it.
	The idea has great merit in terms of what would best help the city develop economically and speed up its much needed regeneration. It would put the council at the centre of the process, acting as the guardian for the city, making sure that the cabling in the city was used for everyone. It could secure employment in the city, which of course is now not guaranteed. Kingston Communications is obviously focusing its business on the corporate sector and much of the company's investment is directed away from Hull at present. The model would ensure that existing and new investments in telecom services and networks were kept in Hull and Humberside. It would be good for the regional economy and local jobs—the modern, skilled local jobs that is Hull is crying out for.
	I have set out only one option, but an imaginative and thoughtful debate could have taken place in the city if we had had a far-sighted local authority that was really looking to regenerate the economy in Hull by using digital technology and investing in the wider community. The Lib Dems have again wasted a real opportunity, with a short-term approach to an historic asset of the city. Councillor Sloan, the portfolio holder, said:
	"The decision to sell the council's remaining stake in Kingston Communications was made because it was in the best interests of the city, its people, local businesses, local shareholders and indeed the company."
	I am not sure that it was in the best interests of thecity, local people or local businesses simply to grabthe money and run. The council could have done something much more imaginative and much bolder. The Lib Dem council in Hull has wasted an opportunity.

Angela Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) on the way in which she put her case to the House. She clearly has deep concerns, and the passion with which she spoke and her commitment to her constituents does her enormous credit. Her views are shared by other Hull Members. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle, has moved to the Back Benches today—unusually and, I hope, temporarily—to show his commitment and his deep feelings about the issue, which are shared by the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
	All local authorities, including Hull, have to make complex decisions about how best to manage their assets and investments, but those are matters for the judgment of each authority; central Government have no powers to intervene. We want authorities to have as much flexibility as possible to manage their investments, which was one of the freedoms we conferred under the prudential capital finance system in 2004. Before that, investments were subject to a complex system of regulation that we inherited from the previous Administration. Now, instead of regulations, we have statutory guidance, which is in simple language and gives authorities considerable discretion to make decisions.
	Authorities are allowed to pursue any form of investment that they consider appropriate. They may also cash in existing investments whenever they want. No Government consents are required at any stage. It is a matter for the political judgment of the local authority. However, the investment guidance contains important safeguards for local taxpayers. It requires the authority to produce a yearly investment strategy, which must be put to the full council. The strategy must set out the general investment policies of the authority and explain how risks will be monitored and managed.
	I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said she that would like the Government to do, and I understand how deeply concerned she is. However, puttingany constraints on the disposal of shares by local authorities would be inconsistent with the freedoms that we have recently conferred on them. When making decisions on whether to acquire, keep or dispose of an investment, an authority's main concern should be security and seeking to minimise the risk of losing money that it holds in trust for the local community. Having addressed that, the authority may seek to maximise its return from its investments.
	All of an authority's investments need to be monitored carefully, and authorities must be ready to respond to changing market circumstances. That may sometimes lead to long-standing investment policies being reversed or changed. These are complex matters, which require specialised professional advice. There can be differences of opinion between technical experts. It is important that, for any sale to take place, the council must fully investigate all the options that are open to it. When making decisions about the disposal of any asset, we would expect the authority to consider the impact that the disposal would have onthe community, the broader local economy and, of course, jobs.
	I understand my hon. Friend's regret at what she feels is a lost opportunity to consider other alternatives. I was struck by her comments about the opportunities available in Amsterdam. If she can undertake that kind of research in the time she has had available, she may want to ask her local authority what opportunities it took to research the available alternatives. Clearly it is too late for that to have an impact on the sale, but she may want to look into the matter to reassure herself and her constituents about whether alternatives were considered.
	I appreciate the fact that the council could not have laid out its exact plans in this matter, but I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that her understanding from the Financial Services Authority was that a commitment in the manifesto to review all assets would have been acceptable and would not have caused any difficulties. I want to refer to a story in a local Hull newspaper; it is regular reading for me. The article is dated 25 May and states:
	"A few months ago Lib Dem leader Carl Minns was dismissing the idea of selling off the city council's remaining stake in Kingston Communications as 'typical Old Labour thinking'."
	I can assure Councillor Minns that, judging from the comments made by my hon. Friend, it is certainly not Labour party thinking.
	Despite the deep concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, there is little that I can do in this matter. It is a matter for the discretion and judgment of the local authority, and the administration in Hull has decided to proceed in this way. If she wants to raise any complaints about financial impropriety, and would like the Audit Commission to look at them, she can look at the rules and regulations to see whether the complaints can be investigated. However, I am not aware that Hull city council has acted improperly financially. We are talking about a matter of judgment, and the council's judgment is clearly at odds with that of my hon. Friend.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Seven o'clock.